434 P.3d 273
Mont.2019Background
- On July 23, 2017 deputies stopped George Hudon for swerving; officers observed signs of intoxication, Hudon admitted drinking, and a preliminary breath test was .143; he refused further testing.
- A telephonic warrant produced a blood sample tested by the Montana State Crime Laboratory showing BAC 0.284; Hudon (with three prior DUI convictions) was charged with felony DUI.
- Hudon requested extensive Crime Lab records; the prosecutor forwarded the requests and provided the Crime Lab contact (per Crime Lab policy, certain materials require a court order), but Hudon’s counsel did not seek the records from the Lab.
- Hudon moved to exclude Crime Lab records as discovery violations; the district court denied the motion, finding the prosecutor satisfied discovery obligations by advising defense how to obtain the records and that the Lab controlled the files.
- The State moved in limine to bar Hudon from arguing the State violated discovery; the court granted the motion and later sustained objections when Hudon suggested at closing the State’s evidence was "incomplete."
- The State amended the information shortly before trial to add a DUI-per-se alternative charge; the court allowed the amendment. A redacted video was provided to defense only the morning of trial; the court admitted it. Jury convicted Hudon of DUI.
Issues
| Issue | Hudon’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether district court erred denying motion to exclude blood-test evidence for asserted discovery violation | State willfully withheld Crime Lab records; exclusion required | Records were not in prosecutor’s possession or control; prosecutor fulfilled obligations by providing Lab contact | Denial affirmed — evidence not in State’s control; prosecutor satisfied discovery duties by directing defense to Lab |
| 2) Whether court erred granting motion in limine and barring closing argument about discovery noncompliance | Court’s limine order unconstitutionally limited defense and shifted burden | Evidence/argument was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial after court’s discovery ruling; could mislead jury | Motion in limine affirmed — court properly excluded evidence/argument that contradicted its prior discovery ruling and could confuse jury |
| 3) Whether allowing amendment of information <5 days before trial was error | Amendment was substantive, altered elements and defenses, untimely | Amendment was alternative charge closely related to original; no prejudice; timing harmless | Affirmed — any timing defect harmless; Hudon had notice and was not convicted on amended charge |
| 4) Whether admitting redacted video given to defense only the morning of trial violated due process | Late disclosure prevented adequate preparation; violated due process | Full video was provided earlier; redactions followed court order and were previewed before trial; no unfair surprise | Affirmed — defense had original video, was given redacted version before trial, and court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Given, 359 P.3d 90 (Mont. 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Sol, 936 P.2d 307 (Mont. 1997) (no prejudice where defendant knew existence of evidence and how to obtain it)
- State v. Hardground, 433 P.3d 711 (Mont. 2019) (standard for permitting amendments to criminal informations)