State v. Garding, 2013 MT 355

Background

On Jan 1, 2008 a dark SUV struck and fatally injured Bronson Parsons while he walked on Highway 200; the vehicle fled the scene.
Witnesses could only describe a larger, dark SUV; Troopers found tire tracks but no definitive point of impact or broken glass.
Katie Garding later drove a black 1994 Chevy Blazer with an aftermarket steel bumper; months later an inmate informed police Garding had said she hit a deer and had a damaged light taped with duct tape.
James Bordeaux, a passenger that night, told police Garding said “I hit somebody.” Bordeaux later pled guilty to an unrelated burglary in exchange for a recommended five-year suspended sentence and testified for the State against Garding.
At trial Garding was convicted of vehicular homicide while under the influence, failure to stop at the scene of an injured person, and driving without a license.
On appeal Garding challenged three evidentiary rulings: (1) limitation on cross-examining Bordeaux about a possible Persistent Felony Offender (PFO) designation, (2) exclusion of portions of defense expert Dr. Bennett’s testimony not disclosed in discovery, and (3) admission of an undisclosed State expert (a fabric-impression witness).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Garding)	Held
Whether the court erred by limiting cross-examination of Bordeaux about a possible PFO designation	Bordeaux’s omnibus form check did not establish any PFO plea negotiation or benefit; limitation was proper because the plea agreement controls impeachment scope	Garding argued the PFO exposure (up to 100 years) was highly probative of Bordeaux’s bias/motive to testify and should be asked about	Court upheld limitation: ample cross-examination about the burglary plea and timing was permitted and no evidence showed the State promised to forego a PFO enhancement, so Confrontation Clause satisfied
Whether excluding Dr. Bennett’s testimony about muscle tearing (because not disclosed) was erroneous	State relied on disclosure rules to limit expert testimony to matters disclosed	Garding argued exclusion prevented rebuttal of State medical examiner’s opinion that calf muscle tearing supported causation, impairing her defense	Court found exclusion was an abuse of discretion but harmless error: Dr. Bennett still fully challenged causation via bruising analysis, and no reasonable possibility the exclusion contributed to conviction
Whether admitting an undisclosed State expert (fabric-impression analyst Hewitt) was improper	State conceded Hewitt was not disclosed but said her brief, narrow testimony simply explained why lab did not compare impressions and could have been rebuttal to defense cross of lab witness	Garding argued surprise witness was prejudicial	Court affirmed admission: trial court gave time to interview witness, testimony was narrow and cross-examined, and any noncompliance did not prejudice Garding (sanction discretion resides with the court)

Key Cases Cited

Bonamarte v. State, 213 P.3d 457 (Mont.) (district court has broad discretion on relevance and admissibility; bias inquiry requires a constitutionally adequate threshold)
Daniels v. State, 265 P.3d 623 (Mont.) (review standards for evidentiary rulings)
Gommenginger v. State, 790 P.2d 455 (Mont.) (right to demonstrate bias under Confrontation Clause)
Parker v. State, 144 P.3d 831 (Mont.) (Confrontation Clause and right to confront adverse witnesses)
Clark v. State, 964 P.2d 766 (Mont.) (Confrontation Clause precedent cited)
On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747 (U.S.) (defendant must be given broad latitude to question witness credibility)
Nelson v. State, 48 P.3d 739 (Mont.) (limitation on cross-examination acceptable where defendant received constitutionally adequate inquiry and no evidence of plea-based deals existed)
Jenkins v. State, 23 P.3d 201 (Mont.) (limits on cross-examination and Confrontation Clause principles)
Huerta v. State, 947 P.2d 483 (Mont.) (defense not required to produce written summaries of witnesses’ testimony)
Stewart v. State, 291 P.3d 1187 (Mont.) (harmless-error framework: structural vs. trial error)
Van Kirk v. State, 32 P.3d 735 (Mont.) (structural error examples and reversible error principles)
Slavin v. State, 87 P.3d 495 (Mont.) (State must prove excluded testimony was non-prejudicial)
Waters v. State, 743 P.2d 617 (Mont.) (trial court discretion on sanctions for discovery noncompliance)
Gardner v. State, 80 P.3d 1262 (Mont.) (rebuttal evidence admissible when it counters newly raised matters)
Jackson v. State, 221 P.3d 1213 (Mont.) (admissibility of rebuttal testimony is within the district court’s discretion)