State v. D. Wendel
2017 MT 287N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- In late December 2012, David Wendel was suspected of taking or confining the Baiers' German Shepherd, Token; animal-control and law-enforcement officers found Token locked in a small closet without food or water and evidence (a bowl) that appeared to contain antifreeze outside the closet.
- The Baiers told officers they suspected Wendel because of prior problems, including an incident two years earlier in which Wendel placed bowls of antifreeze with raw meat around his property and a prior probation matter involving shooting near Doug Baier.
- Wendel was charged (Justice Court) with Cruelty to Animals, Theft, and Possession of a Wild Bird; convicted of Cruelty to Animals and Possession of a Wild Bird, then sought a trial de novo in District Court.
- In District Court, Wendel moved in limine under M. R. Evid. 403 and 404(b) to exclude evidence of the prior antifreeze incident; the court admitted that evidence as relevant to motive, intent, and identity; after trial the jury convicted Wendel of Cruelty to Animals and acquitted him of Possession of a Wild Bird.
- Wendel appealed arguing (1) the prior-act evidence was improperly used as character evidence in violation of M. R. Evid. 404(b) and (2) the court failed to exclude it under M. R. Evid. 403 balancing because of unfair prejudice; he also challenged a $100 prosecution cost as exceeding the statutory maximum.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding the prior-act evidence was admissible to show motive, intent, and identity and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion under Rules 404(b) and 403; the court remanded to correct the prosecution-cost amount from $100 to $50.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior-act evidence under M. R. Evid. 404(b) | State: prior antifreeze incident is admissible to show motive, intent, identity | Wendel: evidence was improper character evidence to show propensity | Court: Admitted as non-propensity evidence for motive, intent, and identity; no abuse of discretion |
| Rule 403 balancing (unfair prejudice) | State: probative value (motive/identity/intent) outweighs prejudice | Wendel: evidence unduly prejudiced jury and was used to attack character | Court: Probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; admission proper |
| Prosecutorial use of evidence beyond limited purpose | State: used evidence to prove proper purposes | Wendel: prosecutor exceeded proper scope and invited propensity inference | Court: Trial record showed proper use for stated purposes; no reversal needed |
| Imposition of prosecution costs | State: n/a (conceded statutory limit) | Wendel: $100 fee exceeds statutory maximum for a single misdemeanor | Court: Agreed; remanded to correct fee to $50 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Passmore, 355 Mont. 187 (discretionary standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Daffin, 387 Mont. 154 (distinction between permissible 404(b) purposes depends on intended purpose)
- State v. Madplume, 386 Mont. 368 (Rule 403: unfair prejudice defined and balancing favors admission unless prejudice substantially outweighs probative value)
- State v. Pulst, 379 Mont. 494 (Rule 403 application and unfair prejudice discussion)