Archive | Admissibility of evidence

RSS feed for this section

State v. Rogers

State v. Rogers, 2013 MT 221 (Aug. 13, 2013) (7-0) (Baker, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court violated Rogers’ constitutional rights by requiring him to testify to his defense of justifiable use of force prior to cross-examining the victim about her prior acts of violence against him, and (2) whether the district court erred by allowing the state to question Rogers about his prior criminal history once he testified about the victim’s prior acts of violence against him.

Short Answer: (1) No, as Rogers failed to preserve this issue for appeal, and (2) yes, this trial error was not harmless.

Reversed & remanded for a new trial

In re the Marriage of Pfeifer

In re the Marriage of Pfeifer, 2013 MT 129 (May 14, 2013) (4-1) (McGrath, C.J., for the majority; Rice, J., dissenting)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by requiring Phillip to pay child support beyond the parties’ child’s 18th birthday; and (2) whether the district court should have applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude Susan’s claim for back child support.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) no, overruling Marriage of Shorten, 1998 MT 267.

Affirmed

State v. Baker

State v. Baker, 2013 MT 113 (April 30, 2013) (5-0) (McGrath, C.J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in admitting into evidence a recorded interview with the victim; (2) whether sufficient evidence supported the conviction; (3) whether the district court erred in denying Baker’s motion for a new trial; and (4) whether’s Baker’s attorney provided ineffective assistance at trial.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) yes; (3) no; and (4) the Court declines to address this issue.

Affirmed

Sullivan v. Continental Construction

Sullivan v. Continental Construction of Montana, LLC, 2013 MT 106 (April 23, 2013) (5-0) (Morris, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly held that Continental had good cause to terminate Sullivan’s employment; (2) whether Continental improperly considered hearsay evidence in deciding to terminate Sullivan’s employment; (3) whether the district court improperly considered hearsay evidence in deciding that Continental had good cause to terminate Sullivan’s employment; and (4) whether the district court properly concluded that Continental did not violate the provisions of its employee handbook when it terminated Sullivan’s employment.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) no; (3) no; and (4) yes.

Affirmed