City of Bozeman v. McCarthy, 447 P.3d 1048

Background

After a May 25, 2015 incident in Bozeman, police subdued and arrested Scott McCarthy following reports that he was in residents’ vehicles and had scratched a woman; body‑worn camera showed officers punching/kneeing him and he was hospitalized with fractured ribs and a partially collapsed lung.
McCarthy was charged in municipal court with misdemeanor criminal trespass, two counts of assault, resisting arrest, and obstructing a peace officer; convictions were affirmed by the district court and appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
Pretrial, McCarthy sought discovery of the officers’ pre‑incident personnel files and use‑of‑force reports; the court ordered production of use‑of‑force policy/reports but denied personnel files based on officers’ privacy and McCarthy’s failure to show particularized substantial need under § 46‑15‑322(5), MCA.
The court excluded testimony from a physician who examined McCarthy the day after arrest about the nature/extent of injuries, concluding the evidence was cumulative and its probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under M. R. Evid. 403.
On appeal McCarthy argued (1) the court improperly balanced his § 46‑15‑322(5) “substantial need” against officers’ privacy, (2) exclusion of physician testimony was error, and (3) insufficient evidence supported the obstructing conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed on all issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant's "substantial need" under § 46‑15‑322(5) precludes balancing against officers' privacy	McCarthy: once substantial need shown, court may not consider officers’ privacy; he sought full personnel files to search for prior excessive‑force history	State: defendant must show particularized substantial need; if claimed, court may perform in camera review and balance against privacy	Held: Court may assess officers’ privacy and balance it against claimed need; McCarthy failed to show particularized substantial need, so denial was proper
Whether excluding physician testimony about injuries was error	McCarthy: physician testimony probative that injuries made him physically incapable of resisting and supported self‑defense/excessive‑force narrative	State: testimony marginal, cumulative to officer testimony and bodycam, risked unfair prejudice/confusing jury	Held: Exclusion proper under M. R. Evid. 403; testimony was cumulative and risked unfair prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Whether evidence was insufficient to convict for obstructing a peace officer	McCarthy: officer was not engaged in an investigation at the time of pursuit, so McCarthy could not have "knowingly" obstructed enforcement	State: issue waived by failure to raise on intermediate appeal; trial evidence showed officer was pursuing suspect after 911 and commanded compliance	Held: Issue waived on intermediate appeal; Court declined plain‑error review and affirmed conviction

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence rules and disclosure obligations)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality standard for nondisclosure under Brady)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (in camera review to reconcile discovery with privacy interests)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (definition of constitutionally material impeachment evidence)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (unfair prejudice analysis under Rule 403)
State v. Romero, 279 Mont. 58 (1996) (procedure for seeking officer personnel files under state discovery rules)
State v. Akers, 389 Mont. 531 (2017) (plain‑error review principles on appeal)
Missoula v. Asbury, 265 Mont. 14 (1994) (waiver rule for issues not raised on intermediate appeal)