State v. Lozon, 2012 MT 303

Lozon was stopped for running a stop sign; he admitted drinking earlier that evening and performed standard field sobriety tests including HGN; Lozon completed the Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test (PAST) with a reading of .153; he was transported to the detention center where he refused further sobriety testing and a breath sample; Lozon was charged with DUI under § 61-8-401, MCA (2009); at trial the district court redacted certain footage but allowed the PAST video to be shown without sound, and the jury was not shown the PAST result

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court abused its discretion by admitting the PAST video without sound	Lozon argues the PAST video was used as substantive evidence without necessary 702/Daubert-type foundation	State argues the video is not PAST evidence and no expert testimony is required to admit the video	Yes, admission was prejudicial error; reversed

State v. Weldele, 2003 MT 117, 315 Mont. 452 (Mont. 2003) (PAST as evidence; abuse of discretion; harmless error framework)
State v. Crawford, 2003 MT 118, 315 Mont. 480 (Mont. 2003) (PAST evidence prejudicial; reversed in some cases)
State v. Van Kirk, 2001 MT 184, 306 Mont. 215 (Mont. 2001) (prejudicial effect of tainted evidence; cumulative evidence test)
State v. Snell, 2004 MT 334, 324 Mont. 173 (Mont. 2004) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings; cumulative error analysis)
State v. Damon, 2005 MT 218, 328 Mont. 276 (Mont. 2005) (PAST admissibility requires Rule 702 analysis)
Weldele (cited as State v. Weldele), 2003 MT 117, 315 Mont. 452 (Mont. 2003) (see above)