State v. Wilmer, 2011 MT 78

Anonymous tip led wardens to Wilmer's residence where a deer carcass was found hanging on Wilmer's deck, described as dried out with mold and exposed to elements.
Fegley concluded the meat was not fit for human consumption and warned Wilmer about waste, tagging, and tagging requirements.
Wilmer presented a deer tag showing two different hunting dates and claimed he didn't remember the exact date of capture.
Fegley issued two tickets and confiscated the carcass, which remained in his truck for three days before photographing and disposal.
At trial, Fegley, Wilmer, and Stroot testified; photographs of the carcass were admitted over Wilmer's objection, based on the claim that the carcass was in substantially the same condition when seized.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Photographs of carcass admissible under M.R. Evid. 403?	State argues photos show condition and are probative of fitness for consumption.	Wilmer contends photos taken days after seizure lack relevance and foundation.	Yes; photos were probative and not unfairly prejudicial; substantial change unlikely to affect admissibility.
Admission of Stroot's testimony based on photographs under M.R. Evid. 602/703?	Stroot could rely on photographs to assess meat fitness.	Stroot lacked direct inspection; jury could decide fitness without expert.	Yes; court allowed expert testimony based on photographs; reasonable that expert opinion aided the jury.

State v. Bar-Jonah, 324 Mont. 278 (2004 MT 344) (admissibility of evidence balancing probative value and prejudice)
Lamb v. Page, 455 P.2d 337 (1969) (unknowns or changes in evidence may affect admissibility)
State v. Walton, 722 P.2d 1145 (1986) (need to identify evidence and show no substantial change)
State v. Wong Fong, 241 P. 1072 (1925) (foundation for admissibility of evidence from time of seizure)
Ployhar v. Board of Trustees, 609 P.2d 1226 (1980) (expert testimony when issue not beyond lay understanding)