State v. Payne
2011 MT 35
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Payne moved from Connecticut to Missoula, Montana, and did not register with the Montana sexual offender registry.
- Payne had been registered in Connecticut since January 1999 for sex offender status.
- In March 2009, a traffic stop revealed Payne’s Connecticut registration; dispute over whether Payne admitted Montana registration was required.
- Payne was arrested March 24, 2009; Information filed April 8, 2009; not guilty plea entered April 21, 2009.
- September 9, 2009, Payne stipulated that the jury would hear Payne’s duty to register in CT and MT but not the underlying offense details; CT arrest warrant at arrest was not present.
- A Connecticut registration document was sought to be excluded via motion in limine; the court granted the motion, but Merifield’s trial testimony later referenced Connecticut compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove knowingly failing to register | Payne knowingly failed to register in Montana after moving here. | State failed to prove Payne knew of Montana registration obligation. | Sufficient evidence; Payne knowingly failed to register. |
| Admission of hearsay over hearsay objection | Merifield's testimony regarding Connecticut registration was admissible. | Testimonial hearsay violated confrontation clause and was prejudicial. | Admission was error, but harmless. |
| Prosecutor's closing remarks as comments on the evidence | Prosecutor’s statements correctly stated Payne knew of the obligation and failed to register. | Remarks improperly invaded jury’s province by commenting on evidence. | Plain-error review declined; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Rowe v. District Court, 44 Mont. 318 (Mont. 1911) (ignorance of the law is no defense)
- State v. Trujillo, 180 P.3d 1153 (Mont. 2008) (people are presumed to know the law)
- State v. G'Stohl, 223 P.3d 926 (Mont. 2010) (presumed knowledge of the law members)
- State v. Van Kirk, 32 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2001) (harmless error framework for trial errors)
- State v. Mizenko, 127 P.3d 458 (Mont. 2006) (testimonial hearsay analysis framework)
- State v. Spencer, 169 P.3d 384 (Mont. 2007) (confrontation clause and hearsay guidance)
- State v. Canon, 687 P.2d 705 (Mont. 1984) (narrow rule on non-verbatim testimonial evidence)