State v. Jay
298 P.3d 396
Mont.2013Background
- On Oct. 3, 2008, Jay drove the wrong way on I-90 for about one-fifth of a mile and collided with an oncoming car, killing Hanson and Thomas.
- EMTs detected alcohol on Jay; Jay admitted drinking two beers and driving tired.
- BAC testing yielded 0.0706–0.088; the State charged Vehicular Homicide While Under the Influence or Negligent Homicide, plus two Criminal Endangerment counts.
- Jay sought to call Dr. Dale Peterson to testify about complex partial seizures; the District Court excluded him.
- During voir dire, juror Bennett revealed strong views on DUI; the court denied a challenge for cause; the court later denied a DUI lesser-included instruction; Jay was convicted of two counts of Negligent Homicide and two counts of Negligent Endangerment; restitution was ordered to the State and to victims’ families.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of challenge for cause to Bennett | Bennett’s DUI bias showed incapacity for impartiality | Bennett could follow the court’s instructions and be impartial | No abuse of discretion; Bennett not shown to have a fixed opinion. |
| Exclusion of expert on complex partial seizures | Exposition testimony would illuminate complex seizures and connect to driving | Testimony lacked nexus to driving and would confuse the jury | District Court did not abuse Rule 702; exclusion upheld. |
| Lesser-included DUI instruction for Vehicular Homicide While Under the Influence | DUI is a lesser-included offense of the charged Vehicular Homicide Under the Influence | Evidence would require acquittal if DUI instruction given; not supported | Court did not abuse discretion; no instruction required. |
| Restitution order to State and victims | Recovery for State’s investigative costs and for victims’ mental health treatment | State not a victim; open-ended mental-health restitution improper | Vacated the $600 to State; remanded for amended, specified restitution to victims. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robinson, 2008 MT 34, 341 Mont. 300 (Mont. 2008) (totality of voir dire; serious doubts require removal for cause)
- Falls Down, 2003 MT 300, 318 Mont. 219 (Mont. 2003) (preconceptions vs. fixed opinions; credibility of statements)
- DeVore, 2002 MT 339, ?? (Mont. 2002) (fixed opinions vs. ability to follow the law)
- Braunreiter, 2008 MT 197, 344 Mont. 59 (Mont. 2008) (lukewarm agreement to follow law insufficient to dissipate concerns)
- Castle, 1997 MT 285, 948 P.2d 688 (Mont. 1997) (two-step analysis for lesser-included offenses)
- Burkhart, 2004 MT 372, 325 Mont. 27 (Mont. 2004) (lesser-included instruction not supported when acquittal otherwise required)
- German, 2001 MT 156, 306 Mont. 92 (Mont. 2001) (no error in denying lesser-included instruction when defense would acquit)
- Martinez, 1998 MT 265, 291 Mont. 306 (Mont. 1998) (relevance of lesser-included instruction to evidence)
- Schmalz, 1998 MT 210, 290 Mont. 420 (Mont. 1998) (framework for lesser-included offenses)
- Grindheim, 2004 MT 311, 323 Mont. 519 (Mont. 2004) (defendant’s theory may require acquittal rather than conviction)
- Cassill, 70 Mont. 433, 227 P. 49 (Mont. 1924) (exposition testimony illuminating jury understanding; admissibility)
- Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 702 constitutionality; expert testimony helpful to jury)