State of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee v. William Guy Hart, Defendant and Appellant (Montana 2009)

Summary

The court affirmed Hart’s conviction for vehicular homicide while under the influence. It held that the trial court properly denied Hart’s challenge to a prospective juror because the juror’s statements showed an ability to follow the law and remain impartial, and properly admitted the video deposition because the State made a reasonable, good-faith effort to secure the witness’s attendance and Hart had cross-examined him. The court further held that the bailiff’s unauthorized delivery of video equipment to the jury was trial error, but harmless because the videos were cumulative and did not contribute to the conviction.

Holding

Challenge for cause to prospective juror R.F.. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hart’s challenge for cause because R.F.’s personal views about drinking and driving did not amount to actual bias. R.F. recognized that the law, the State’s burden of proof, and the evidence—not his personal opinion—would govern his decision.

Admission of the video deposition. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting McDonnell’s video deposition. The State demonstrated that McDonnell was unavailable after reasonable efforts to locate and secure him, and Hart had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him.

Mistrial after unauthorized jury access to video equipment. The bailiff erred by providing video equipment to the jury without prior court approval, but the error was harmless. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by denying Hart’s motion for a mistrial.

State of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee v. William Guy Hart, Defendant and Appellant

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by