State v. Bollman
272 P.3d 650
Mont.2012Background
- Bollman was convicted of his fifth DUI offense, a felony, after a jury trial and sentenced to DOC commitment.
- Officer McConnell observed Bollman drifting, un signaling a wide left turn, and traffic violations, leading to a DUI stop.
- Bollman showed signs of intoxication (odor, slurred speech, red watery eyes) and performed SFSTs with results described by the officer.
- At the station Bollman refused a breath test and stated he wanted a lawyer; he claimed arthritis and explained why SFSTs should not be performed.
- Before trial, the State sought to admit HGN evidence via an expert; Bollman objected and sought exclusion unless qualified expert testimony was provided.
- During trial, a fleeting reference to felony DUI by Officer McConnell occurred; Bollman moved for mistrial and sought limiting instructions; the court invited curative measures but did not grant a mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trooper Proctor was qualified to testify as an expert on HGN science. | Bollman—Proctor lacked adequate specialized qualifications. | Bollman—insufficient specialized training to qualify as an expert on HGN. | Qualified; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether the mistrial motion should have been granted due to the inadmissible felony reference. | Bollman—reference prejudiced the jury and warranted mistrial. | State’s remark was inadvertent and curable; no mistrial required. | Denied; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hulse v. State, 289 Mont. 1, 961 P.2d 75 (Mont. 1998) (establishes the scientific basis for HGN admissibility)
- Michaud v. State, 342 Mont. 244, 180 P.3d 636 (Mont. 2008) (requires expert testimony on the correlation between alcohol and HGN)
- Van Kirk v. State, 306 Mont. 215, 32 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2001) (affirmed evaluation of expert qualifications for HGN)
- Harris v. State, 344 Mont. 208, 186 P.3d 1263 (Mont. 2008) (no essential requirements; expert qualifications depend on combination of credentials)
- Crawford v. State, 315 Mont. 480, 68 P.3d 848 (Mont. 2003) (extensive qualifications can justify HGN expert)
- Brush v. State, 228 Mont. 247, 741 P.2d 1333 (Mont. 1987) (cautionary instruction as remedy for inadmissible evidence)
- Weldele v. State, 315 Mont. 452, 69 P.3d 1162 (Mont. 2003) (mistrial standard requires prejudice or denial of fair trial)
- Giddings v. State, 349 Mont. 347, 208 P.3d 363 (Mont. 2009) (prejudice assessment for mistrial)
- Partin v. State, 287 Mont. 12, 951 P.2d 1002 (Mont. 1997) (cautionary instruction as remedy for inadvertent prejudice)
- Caras v. State, 364 Mont. 32, 270 P.3d 48 (Mont. 2012) (acquiesced remedies not error when court actions were chosen by defense)