State v. Daniel Montgomery
43795
| Idaho Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Nighttime street encounter: Montgomery confronted an approaching vehicle with a gun after the car had swerved and struck a trash can; after a brief conversation the driver moved forward and struck Montgomery, who then fired at the vehicle.
- Charges and trial outcome: Initially charged with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of unlawful discharge of a firearm; one aggravated-assault count dismissed pretrial; jury acquitted on aggravated assault and convicted of unlawful discharge at a vehicle.
- Discovery and witnesses: Defense served a Rule 16 request for names of potential state witnesses; State produced a witness list but called four rebuttal witnesses—two of whom were not disclosed pretrial.
- Rebuttal testimony: Undisclosed rebuttal witnesses testified the defendant reported no injuries when booked and about bullets/holes in the victim’s tire; defense objected at trial to the undisclosed witnesses under I.C.R. 16(b)(6).
- Trial court ruling and sentence: Trial court allowed rebuttal testimony relying on Idaho precedent; Montgomery was sentenced to an eight-year term (four years determinate) suspended, and placed on probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether I.C.R. 16(b)(6) required prior disclosure of rebuttal witnesses | State: longstanding Idaho precedent permits undisclosed rebuttal witnesses; no showing of prejudice | Montgomery: plain language of I.C.R.16(b)(6) requires disclosure of all witnesses, including rebuttal; 1989 statutory change invalidates prior precedent | Court: Bound by Idaho Supreme Court precedent allowing undisclosed rebuttal witnesses; trial court acted within discretion; alternatively any error was harmless |
| Whether admission of undisclosed rebuttal testimony required exclusion as sanction | State: trial court has discretion and no prejudice shown | Montgomery: failure to disclose warranted sanction (exclusion) | Court: discretionary choices properly exercised; no prejudice shown; exclusion not required |
| Whether admission of rebuttal testimony prejudiced the verdict | State: other testimony and video evidence negated prejudice | Montgomery: undisclosed testimony undermined defense credibility and fairness | Court: testimony was cumulative and video plus defendant’s admissions made any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct in closing by accusing defense witnesses of lying | State: prosecutor may argue credibility based on evidence; latitude in closing | Montgomery: prosecutor improperly asserted witnesses lied, denying fair trial | Held: statements were based on evidence (video) and within permissible argument; no reversible prosecutorial misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Olsen, 103 Idaho 278, 647 P.2d 734 (Idaho 1982) (discussed historic rule allowing undisclosed rebuttal witnesses under pre-1989 statute)
- State v. Pierce, 107 Idaho 96, 685 P.2d 837 (Ct. App. 1984) (applied Olsen to hold rebuttal witnesses need not be disclosed)
- State v. Lopez, 107 Idaho 726, 692 P.2d 370 (Ct. App. 1984) (reaffirmed that disclosure duties do not extend to rebuttal witnesses)
- State v. Wilson, 158 Idaho 585, 349 P.3d 439 (Ct. App. 2015) (noted tension between Rule 16 text and precedent; treated prior line of cases as unresolved but did not overrule them)
- Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 (Idaho 2011) (statutory and rule interpretation principles)
- State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1331 (Idaho 1989) (standards for appellate review of trial court discretion)
- Perry v. State, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (Idaho 2010) (fundamental error doctrine for unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims)
- State v. Phillips, 144 Idaho 82, 156 P.3d 583 (Ct. App. 2007) (permitted latitude in closing argument and limits on personal opinion)