State v. Krenning, 383 P.3d 721

On Dec. 23, 2014, Officer Huertas stopped Gerald Krenning for suspected DUI; Huertas performed an HGN test and Krenning refused a breath test. State charged DUI and expired registration; Krenning pleaded guilty to the registration charge and proceeded to trial on DUI.
Trial was set within the six‑month statutory window but was continued several times; a short continuance (to July 17) was granted because Huertas was on paid administrative leave while subject to an internal investigation.
Krenning moved to dismiss for violation of the statutory six‑month speedy‑trial rule; the Justice Court denied the motion and later convicted Krenning of DUI after a jury trial. The District Court affirmed.
At trial the court barred cross‑examination about reasons for Huertas’s administrative leave, permitted Huertas to testify as an HGN expert, and rejected Krenning’s proposed instructions limiting inference from breath‑test refusal.
The Supreme Court affirmed on all issues, holding the short nine‑day delay beyond six months was supported by good cause (officer unavailability), exclusion of leave‑related cross‑examination was proper under Rule 608(b), Huertas could testify as an HGN expert, and the court’s jury instructions adequately stated the law.

Issue	Krenning's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Statutory speedy‑trial violation under §46‑13‑401(2), MCA	Trial occurred 9 days after the 6‑month deadline; dismissal required	Officer’s unavailability due to administrative leave/internal investigation was good cause for brief continuance	The nine‑day delay was justified by good cause (officer unavailability); no speedy‑trial violation
2. Cross‑examination about reasons for Huertas’s administrative leave	Defense could probe reasons to impeach Huertas’s credibility	Leave reasons not probative of truthfulness; newspaper article not in record	Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding such inquiry under M. R. Evid. 608(b)
3. Huertas testifying as HGN expert without specific expert designation	Insufficient notice that Huertas would be offered as HGN expert	State disclosed witness and police report; officer had relevant training	Court properly allowed expert HGN testimony; no abuse of discretion
4. Jury instructions on breath‑test refusal	Proposed instructions would prevent drawing inference that refusal indicates intoxication	Statute permits admission of refusal and a rebuttable inference of intoxication; proposed instructions misstated law	Court’s instructions (admitting refusal and allowing rebuttable inference) correctly stated law

State v. Ronningen, 691 P.2d 1348 (1984) (statutory six‑month misdemeanor trial limit subject to exceptions for defendant’s motion or good cause)
City of Helena v. Roan, 226 P.3d 601 (2010) (standard for reviewing speedy‑trial statutory interpretation)
City of Helena v. Heppner, 341 P.3d 640 (2015) (six‑month limit does not apply if good cause shown)
State v. Johnson, 4 P.3d 654 (2000) (unavailability of officer on out‑of‑state assignment constituted good cause)
State v. Billman, 194 P.3d 58 (2008) (officer unavailability for training generally can be good cause; timeliness of continuance request relevant)
State v. Ariegwe, 167 P.3d 915 (2007) (key prosecution witness unavailability is valid reason for delay)
State v. Dunning, 198 P.3d 828 (2008) (court may exclude specific‑instance impeachment evidence under Rule 608 if prejudicial)
State v. DuBray, 77 P.3d 247 (2003) (trial court’s discretion in admission of expert testimony reviewed for abuse of discretion)