Lead Opinion
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Rаul C. Sanchez (Sanchez) appeals from his conviction in the Twentieth Judicial District, Sanders County, of deliberate homicide. We affirm.
¶2 We restate the issues as follows:
¶3 Did the District Court improperly allow Aleasha’s statements to be introduced over Sanchez’s hearsay objections?
¶4 Did the introduction of Aleasha’s note violate Sanchez’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation?
¶5 Did the prosecutor’s closing argument deny Sanchez the right to a fair trial?
¶6 Did the “lesser included offense” language of the mitigated deliberate homicide instruction impermissibly allow the jury to consider sentencing in reaching its verdict?
BACKGROUND
¶7 Sanchez shot and killed Aleasha Chenowith (Aleasha) outside her home on the night of July 19, 2004. Later that evening, Sanchez turned himself in to law enforcement and admitted shooting Aleasha. The State charged Sanchez with deliberate homicide for Aleasha’s death.
¶8 Before trial, Sanchez moved to exclude a note the State proposed to offer as a trial exhibit. The note read:
To whom it concerns:
On July 8, 04 around 10:30 p [sic] Raul Sanchez Cardines told me if I ever was cought [sic] with another man while I was dating him, that he would kill me. Raul told me he had friends in Mexico that had medicine that would kill me and our doctors wouldn’t know what it was till it was to [sic] late and I would be dead.
So if I unexspetly [sic] become sick and on the edge of death, and perhaps I die no [sic] you will have some answers.
Aleasha Chenowith (written and printed signature)
¶9 Sanchez argued that the note should be excluded because it contained inadmissible multiple hearsay and would also violate his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The District Court denied Sanchez’s motion and ruled that Aleasha’s note was admissible as a statement under belief of impending death, pursuant to M. R. Evid. 804(b)(2). The District Court concluded that Sanchez’s statements within the note were admissible as either a statement against interest, pursuant to M. R. Evid. 804(b)(3), or as a statement describing Sanchez’s then existing state of mind, pursuant to M. R. Evid. 803(3). The District Court did not address Sanchez’s Confrontation Clause claim. Sanchez’s jury trial began on June 13, 2005.
¶10 At trial, Sanchez testified that he and Aleasha had been dating for approximately four-and-a-half months and that he had contemplated marrying Aleasha. However, Sanchez became suspicious that Aleasha was cheating on him with Angel, one of Sanchez’s co-workers. On July 19, 2004, Sanchez confronted Angel, who confirmed Sanchez’s suspicions. Sanchez testified that when he later spoke with Aleasha, she threatened to create problems for him with law enforcement so that Sanchez would ultimately have his children taken away from him. According to Sanchez, he felt as though “something got dark in [his] head[,]” and he shot Aleasha several times.
¶11 At trial, the State introduced several statements that Aleasha made to others before her death. In addition to the note, the State elicited testimony about other instances in which Sanchez purportedly threatened Aleasha. Pamela Ehrlich testified that Aleasha told her about an argument she had with Sanchez. According to Ehrlich’s testimony, during the argument Sanchez stated, “Me love you, [Aleasha]. Me not love you that much. You cross me, I kill you.” The District Court overruled Sanchez’s hearsay objection. Leann Chenowith, Aleasha’s sister,
¶12 During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued that the jury could convict Sanchez of mitigated deliberate homicide only if the jury found that Sanchez’s response to extreme emotional distress was reasonable, rather than that his explanation for the extreme emotional distress was reasonable. Defense counsel objected that the prosecutor was misinterpreting the jury instructions, and the District Court overruled the objection.
¶13 Sanchez objected throughout the proceedings to the mitigated deliberate homicide jury instruction because the instruction stated that mitigated deliberate homicide was a “lesser included offense” of deliberate homicide. Sanchez argued that the instruction allowed the jurors to indirectly consider sentencing factors in their deliberations. The District Court overruled Sanchez’s objection.
¶14 The jury convicted Sanchez of deliberate homicide, and the District Court sentenced Sanchez to life without parole in Montana State Prison. Sanchez appeals his conviction.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶15 We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Mizenko,
DISCUSSION
¶16 I. Did the District Court improperly allow Aleasha’s statements to be introduced over Sanchez’s hearsay objections?
¶17 “Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted” within the statement. M. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay is inadmissible “except as otherwise provided by statute, these rules [of evidence], or other rules applicable in the courts of this state.” M. R. Evid. 802. Sanchez asserts that the District Court erred when it admitted, over hearsay objections, Aleasha’s statements to her sister, Aleasha’s statements to her neighbor, and Aleasha’s note. According to Sanchez, these three statements contain double hearsay and thus, to be admissible, must comply with the multiple-hearsay rule, which requires that all instances of hearsay within a statement conform to a hearsay exception. M. R. Evid. 805. We note at the outset that these three statements contain only one level of hearsay. Montana Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) provides:
Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if: ... (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party’s own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity ....
(Paragraph breaks omitted.) Thus, the statements attributable to Sanchez are exempt from the hearsay definition; they are not hearsay.
A. Aleasha’s statement to her sister
¶18 Leann Chenowith testified that Aleasha told her that Sanchez had threatened that “if [Aleasha] ever made [Sanchez] mad... he had stuff in Mexico that his friend could give him, and that it would eat her stomach in a matter of days.” The District Court overruled Sanchez’s hearsay objection without stating a specific rationale. Sanchez argues that no hearsay exception applies to this statement and that the District Court erred in admitting the statement.
¶19 We conclude that the District Court correctly overruled Sanchez’s hearsay objection
B. Aleasha’s statement to her neighbor
¶20 Pamela Ehrlich testified that Aleasha told her that, during an argument, Sanchez stated, “[m]e love you, [Aleasha]. Me not love you that much. You cross me, I kill you.” The District Court again overruled Sanchez’s hearsay objection without stating a specific rationale. Sanchez argues that no hearsay exception applies to this statement and that the District Court erred in admitting the statement. The State apparently combines its arguments relating to the statements of Aleasha’s neighbor and Aleasha’s sister and responds that Aleasha’s statements could be admissible as excited utterances, present sense impressions, or statements made under a belief of impending death. Alternatively, the State argues that if the District Court erred its error was harmless.
¶21 Our review of the record convinces us that the hearsay exceptions proposed by the State are inapplicable to this statement. The “present sense impression” hearsay exception applies to statements made “while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.” M. R. Evid. 803(1). Ehrlich’s testimony reveals that Aleasha’s statement recounted a threat Sanchez made the prior evening. Thus, Aleasha’s statement described an event that she “perceived” the prior evening, rather than a “present sense impression.” The “excited utterance” hearsay exception applies to statements “relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” M. R. Evid. 803(2). Ehrlich testified that Aleasha seemed unconcerned by Sanchez’s threat and that Aleasha remarked, “[Sanchez] was nothing more than a dumb little Mexican. He ain’t got the balls to do nothing.” Aleasha’s comments indicate that she lacked the “stress of excitement” necessary to implicate the excited utterance exception. Similarly, we conclude that the “statement under belief of impending death” hearsay exception is inapplicable because Aleasha’s comments indicate that she did not make the statement “while believing that [her] death was imminent,” and her statement did not concern “the cause or circumstance of what [she] believed to be impending death.” M. R. Evid. 804(b)(2).
¶22 Though no exceptions apply to Aleasha’s hearsay statement, we agree with the State that the District Court committed harmless error because the State presented other admissible evidence that proved the same facts as the hearsay evidence. We apply the “cumulative evidence” test to determine whether a district court’s trial error is harmless. State v. Van Kirk,
¶23 Sanchez testified that his suspicions of Aleasha’s infidelity were confirmed on Monday morning, July 19, 2004, when Angel, a coworker, admitted sleeping with Aleasha. Sanchez testified that he then arranged for his daughters to sleep at a friend’s house so that he and Aleasha could talk without his children present. He testified that he
¶24 Jason Sheehan, one of Sanchez’s co-workers, testified that Sanchez mentioned during the lunch break that Sanchez was upset because Aleasha had cheated on him. Sheehan testified that Sanchez stated that he was going to go to Aleasha’s house, drop off her clothes, and “maybe slap her around a little bit.” Sheehan also testified that Sanchez stated that “maybe he would get out his 9 [millimeter pistol] and go shoot her.” At no point did Sanchez object to Sheehan’s testimony.
¶25 In light of the damaging testimony from Sheehan and Sanchez, we conclude that the District Court committed harmless error in admitting Aleasha’s hearsay statement. The testimony of Sanchez and Sheehan presented the jury with cumulative evidence that proved the same facts as Aleasha’s statement. Moreover, given the character of Sanchez’s and Sheehan’s in-court testimony, the jury was presented with evidence of deliberate homicide that qualitatively outweighed any impact that Aleasha’s statement may have had on the jury. The jury heard from Aleasha’s killer himself, that, after learning of Aleasha’s infidelity, he made arrangements for the care of his children, he went to the store and purchased ammunition, he took the loaded gun to Aleasha’s house, he waited for her to come outside, and he shot her after a brief argument. We conclude that the qualitative nature of Sanchez’s testimony outweighs any qualitative impact that Aleasha’s hearsay statement may have had on the jury and that no reasonable possibility exists that the hearsay statement contributed to the conviction, and thus, any error is harmless. Van Kirk, ¶ 47.
C. Aleasha’s note
¶26 At trial, the State offered a note written by Aleasha that stated:
To whom it concerns:
On July 8, 04 around 10:30 p [sic] Raul Sanchez Cardines told me if I ever was cought [sic] with another man while I was dating him, that he would kill me. Raul told me he had friends in Mexico that had medicine that would kill me and our doctors wouldn’t know what it was till it was to [sic] late and I would be dead.
So if I unexspetly [sic] become sick and on the edge of death, and perhaps I die no [sic] you will have some answers.
Aleasha Chenowith (written and printed signature)
Sanchez objected to the note’s admission on hearsay grounds throughout the pre-trial proceedings and at trial. The District Court overruled Sanchez’s hearsay objection and concluded that M. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), the hearsay exception for statements made under belief of impending death, removed Aleasha’s written statements from the hearsay rule. Sanchez argues that Aleasha’s note does not indicate that she feared imminent death, and thus, the District Court erred in admitting the note as a dying declaration.
¶27 We agree with Sanchez that the District Court incorrectly relied on the “statement under belief of impending death” hearsay exception to admit Aleasha’s note. This exception applies to statements “made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstance of what the declarant believed to be impending death.” M. R. Evid. 804(b)(2). Aleasha’s statements that “if I [unexpectedly] become sick” and “perhaps I die” indicate that she viewed her death as neither certain nor imminent. (Emphases added.)
¶29 The testimony of Sheehan and Sanchez presented the jury with cumulative evidence that proved the same facts that Aleasha’s note sought to prove. Further the qualitative nature of their testimony outweighs any qualitative impact that Aleasha’s hearsay statement may have had on the jury; we can conceive of no evidence more qualitatively damning than Sanchez’s narration of the day he killed Aleasha. Further, Sheehan’s account of Sanchez’s lunchtime comment that “maybe he would get out his 9 and go shoot [Aleasha]” confirmed that Sanchez contemplated killing Aleasha shortly after learning of her transgression. In light of the evidence presented by Sanchez’s and Sheehan’s testimony, we conclude that no reasonable possibility exists that the statement in the note contributed to Sanchez’s conviction, and thus, any error is harmless. Van Kirk, ¶ 47.
¶30 II. Did the introduction of Aleasha’s note violate Sanchez’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation?
¶31 Sanchez claims that the District Court violated his constitutional right to confrontation under both the United States and Montana Constitutions when it admitted Aleasha’s note as evidence. Sanchez argues that the note was “testimonial” hearsay and thus was inadmissible unless the court found (1) that the declarant was unavailable, and (2) that there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Though Sanchez concedes Aleasha’s unavailability, he asserts that he had no opportunity to question her about the note.
¶32 The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees criminal defendants the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial hearsay. Davis v. Washington,
¶33 Sanchez argues that Aleasha’s note, documenting the date and time of Sanchez’s alleged statement and the substance of his threat, is testimonial because it bears similarities to an affidavit. Additionally, Sanchez equates Aleasha’s note with Lord Cobham’s infamous letter, discussed by the Supreme Court in Crawford, that implicated Sir Walter Raleigh for treason.
¶34 Though the United States Supreme Court has declined to comprehensively define “testimonial,” it has supplied a consistent starting point:
[The Confrontation Clause] applies to “witnesses” against the accused-in other words, those who “bear testimony.” [1] N.Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). “Testimony,” in turn, is typically “[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” Ibid. An accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not.
Crawford,
¶35 In State v. Mizenko, we discussed what constitutes a testimonial statement. In general, a declarant’s statements are presumed testimonial if they are knowingly made to a police officer or government agent. Mizenko, ¶ 23. A statement is presumed non-testimonial, however, if the declarant had “objective reason to believe” that the statement served only “to avert or mitigate an imminent or immediate danger” and the agent receiving the statement lacked intent to create evidence. Mizenko, ¶ 23. A statement made to a nongovernmental agent is non-testimonial -unless the declarant had “clear reason to believe that the statement would be used in court as substantive evidence against the defendant....” Mizenko, ¶ 23. Thus, though we declined to formulate a comprehensive definition of “testimonial,” we recognized that certain presumptions arise depending on the intended audience and the purpose of the statement.
¶36 In our Mizenko discussion we also found significant a statement’s context, and we looked to whether a declarant reasonably should expect that the State would use the declarant’s statements at trial. Mizenko, ¶¶ 17-21. We noted the Supreme Court’s characterization of “a casual remark to an acquaintance” as non-testimonial, Crawford,
¶37 Aleasha addressed her note “[t]o whom it concerns[.]” Her stated reason for -writing the note was that “if I unexspetly [sic] become sick and on the edge of death, and perhaps I die no [sic] you will have some answers.” The note’s substanсe indicates that the note’s purpose was to explain her untimely death or poisoning, not to prevent or mitigate future harm. Aleasha’s short note named the person she suspected would kill her and the method he threatened to use. In essence, Aleasha’s note contained information
¶38 Moreover, the circumstances surrounding Aleasha’s note indicate that it bears little similarity to a non-testimonial “casual remark to an acquaintance.” Crawford,
¶39 Though the Supreme Court held in Crawford that the Confrontation Clause mandates cross-examination to assess a testimonial statement’s reliability, the Court nonetheless acknowledged that exceptions to the Confrontation Clause exist. Crawford,
¶40 As this case presents our first opportunity to consider the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine since the Crawford decision, other jurisdictions’ post-Crawford decisions aid our analysis. To the extent that it applies to an admitted and intentional killing, we find persuasive the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in U.S. v. Garcia-Meza, 403 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2005). In Garcia-Meza, a jury convicted the defendant of murdering his wife after hearing testimony from law enforcement officers describing the wife’s hearsay statements concerning a prior assault. At trial, the defendant admitted killing his wife, but argued that her murder was not premeditated. Garcia-Meza,
¶41 The Sixth Circuit specifically rejected Garcia-Meza’s argument that the forfeiture doctrine applies only when the defendant has committed wrongdoing with the intent to prevent the witness from testifying. Garcia-Meza,
¶42 The Sixth Circuit decided Garcia-Meza in the interim between the United States Supreme Court’s Crawford and Davis decisions. In Davis, the Supreme Court further clarified the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine. In response to the contention that domestic violence cases require more flexibility regarding testimonial evidence, the Court reiterated that the doctrine operates to extinguish “confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” Davis,
[W]hen defendants seek to undermine the judicial process by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses and victims, the Sixth Amendment does not require courts to acquiesce. While defendants have no duty to assist the State in proving their guilt, they do have the duty to refrain from acting in ways that destroy the integrity of the criminal-trial system.
Davis,
¶43 Though the Supreme Court’s discussion of the forfeiture doctrine in Davis seemingly
¶44 The California Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument that language from Davis discussing the forfeiture doctrine-‘“when defendants seek to undermine the judicial process by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses and victims”’-supported an intent-to-silence requirement. Giles,
¶45 Even jurisdictions that impose an intent-to-silence requirement on the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine recognize that homicide cases may present an exception. For example, in Illinois v. Stechly, the Illinois Supreme Court left open the possibility of a homicide exception though it determined that the above-quoted language from Davis “strongly connotes a requirement of intent.”
[T]he prosecution need not prove that the defendant committed murder with the intent of procuring the victim’s absence. This is consistent with presuming such intentwhen the wrongdoing at issue is murder. When a defendant commits murder, notwithstanding any protestation that he did not specifically intend to procure the victim’s inability to testify at a subsequent trial, he will nonetheless be sure that this would be a result of his actions. Murder is, in this sense, different from any other wrongdoing in which a defendant could engage with respect to a witness-more than a possibility, or a substantial likelihood, a defendant knows with absolute certainty that a murder victim will not be available to testify.
Stechly,
¶46 To the extent that a deliberate criminal act results in the victim’s death, we agree that the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine does not hinge on whether the defendant specifically intended to silence a witness. The doctrine derives from the maxim that no person should benefit from the person’s own wrongdoing. Reynolds v. U.S.,
¶47 The facts of this case are substantially similar to those of Garcia-Meza. Sanchez fatally shot Aleasha, thereby rendering her unavailable as a witness. Sanchez was charged with Aleasha’s homicide, and the State introduced her prior statements. No dispute exists as to whether Sanchez killed Aleasha-he admitted it to law enforcement and at trial. We need not determine whether the defendant’s wrongdoing is the same act for which he was tried because the dispute at trial centered on whether mitigating circumstances existed, not on whether Sanchez killed Aleasha. We conclude that Sanchez forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to confront Aleasha when he killed her. Moreover, Sanchez cannot claim that his Montana constitutional right to “meet the witnesses against him face to face” was violated when his admittedly deliberate wrongdoing prevented such a confrontation. We emphasize the narrow holding on this issue: when a defendant admittedly and deliberately kills another person, thus procuring the person’s unavailability as a witness, the defendant forfeits the constitutional rights to confront the victim at trial.
¶48 Though the District Court failed to address Sanchez’s Confrontation Clause claim and based its ruling on hearsay exceptions, we cannot say the District Court reached an incorrect result. We will uphold a district court’s correct decision, regardless of the stated rationale. State v. Rensvold,
¶49 III. Did the prosecutor’s closing argument deny Sanchez the right to a fair trial?
¶50 Sanchez asserts that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by repeatedly misstating the law regarding the elements of mitigated deliberate homicide during closing arguments and that these misstatements denied Sanchez his right to a fair trial. The State maintains that Sanchez has waived his right to appeal this issue becаuse he failed to move the District Court for curative measures, such as a mistrial or a cautionary instruction. As Sanchez points out, however, his objection was overruled, and he had no reason to anticipate that the District Court would issue curative measures. We conclude that Sanchez’s objection during closing arguments properly preserved this issue for appeal. Section 46-20-104, MCA.
¶51 If a prosecutor’s improper comments prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair trial, then the proper remedy is reversal. State v. Stringer, 271 Mont. 367, 381,
A. The prosecutor’s comments during closing argument
¶52 Sanchez argues that the prosecutor repeatedly misstated the law regarding mitigated deliberate homicide during the State’s closing argument and rebuttal. Specifically, Sanchez points to the prosecutor’s statement that, to convict for mitigated deliberate homicide, the jury had to find that Sanchez’s response to extreme emotional distress was reasonable, rather than that a reasonable explanation existed for his emotional distress. The prosecutor then argued:
[t]he streets would be littered with corpses if it was reasonable to shoot somebody because they cheated on you and made you angry. Based on your own lifetime experiences you have seen that. You may have been part of it. Did you kill somebody? Did somebody kill you, your friends, other people? No. That answers the question. This is not a reasonable response for a person under these circumstances.
(Emphasis added.) Sanchez argues that the plain language of the mitigated deliberate homicide statute indicates that “reasonable” modifies the defendant’s emotional state, not the defendant’s actions. The statute provides that a person who commits a deliberate homicide, “but does so under the influence of extreme mental or emotional stress for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse” has committed mitigated deliberate homicide. Section 45-5-103(1), MCA. The statute is unambiguous, and we conclude that the prosecutor misstated the law.
¶53 On appeal, the State argues that the prosecutor’s remarks are “troubling” only because they are not presented in their proper context. The State then attempts to furnish this context by directing us to two instances when the prosecutor made “accurate” statements of the law. The first instance the State identifies is an accurate statement of the law; however, the State has misidentified the speaker: it was Sanchez’s counsel, not the prosecutor who properly stated the law on mitigated deliberate homicide. The second instance, though properly attributed to the prosecutor and an accurate statement of the law, was followed directly by an incorrect explanation:
The reasonableness of the explanation or excuse must be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the actor’s situation. That is, what would a reasonable person do, not what the defendant did. The evidence in this case shows you it was not reasonable. And if it’s not reasonable, there goes mitigated deliberate homicide.
(Emphasis added.)
¶54 The State maintains that improvising during closing arguments frequently results in imperfect syntax and less than crystal clear meaning. The comments at issue, however,
B. Prejudicial effect of improper comments
¶55 Having determined that the prosecutor improperly stated the law, we must next determine whether the comments prejudiced Sanchez’s right to a fair and impartial trial. Gladue, ¶ 12. We do not presume that a prosecutor’s improper comments prejudiced a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial; rather, Sanchez must demonstrate, from the record, that the prosecutor’s misstatements prejudiced him. Gladue, ¶ 27. Additionally, when determining prejudicial effect, we review improper comments in the context of thе entire case. Gladue, ¶ 27.
¶56 Sanchez offers as evidence of prejudicial effect a note from the jury to the District Court requesting additional instructions. The note reads: “Your Honor, One of our jurors has requested that you define the term ‘reasonable.’” Sanchez argues that the jury’s note indicates that the jury was confused by the term “reasonable,” that the prosecutor’s improper comments caused this confusion, and that Sanchez’s right to a fair trial was thus prejudiced.
¶57 The jury’s note requested only that the District Court define “reasonable.” The note did not indicate that the jury was confused as to which term “reasonable” modified. Moreover, the jury instruction on mitigated deliberate homicide accurately conveyed § 45-5-103, MCA, which unambiguously states that “reasonable” modifies the explanation for the extreme mental or emotional stress, not the defendant’s act of causing the death of another human being. The jury additionally was presented with defense counsel’s correct interpretation of the law and the District Court’s instructions on mitigated deliberate homicide. The prosecutor also informed the jury that the attorneys’ closing arguments were not evidence. Before closing arguments the District Court read aloud the jury instructions and stated that the instructions “constituted] the law that [the jury] must follow in this case.” American jurisprudence depends on a jury’s ability to follow instructions and juries are presumed to follow the law that courts provide. State v. Turner,
¶58 Based on the lack of ambiguity in the mitigated deliberate homicide instruction, the District Court’s oral and written instructions to the jury, and the presumption that the jury followed the law, we conclude that Sanchez has failed to demonstrate that the prosecutor’s improper comments prejudiced his right to a fair and impartial trial.
¶59 IV. Did the “lesser included offense” language of the mitigated deliberate homicide instruction impermissibly allow the jury to consider sentencing in reaching its verdict?
¶60 Sanchez claims that the jury instruction defining mitigated deliberate homicide as a “lesser included offense of Deliberate Homicide” improperly allowed the jury to consider sentencing in reaching its verdict. Sanchez asserts that this language “probably pushed the jurors away from fully considering [his] mitigated deliberate hоmicide defense.” (Emphasis added.) Sanchez argues that including the word “lesser” in the instruction may have permitted the jury to surmise that Sanchez would receive a lesser sentence if the jury convicted him of mitigated deliberate homicide rather than of deliberate homicide.
¶61 A jury should not consider sentencing in determining a defendant’s guilt or innocence. State v. Brodniak,
¶62 The District Court provided the jury a mitigated deliberate homicide instruction that closely parallels § 45-5-103, MCA, the statute defining mitigated deliberate homicide. The jury instruction correctly stated the law. Additionally, the jury instructions, taken together, accurately set forth the State’s burden of proof and the elements that the jury must find to convict Sanchez of mitigated deliberate homicide or deliberate homicide. To give a jury instruction on mitigated deliberate homicide that would alleviate Sanchez’s concern would be difficult, if not impossible. If, as Sanchez argues, use of the word “lesser” invited the jury to indirectly consider punishment, the same can be said of the word “mitigated”-a term defining the very essence of the described offense. The jury instructions, when viewed in their entirety, fully and fairly presented the applicable law to the jury. Moreover, Sanchez’s speculation that the “lesser included” language probably dissuaded the jury from a mitigated deliberate homicide verdict cannot overcome the presumption that the jury actually followed the law that the District Court provided. Turner,
¶63 Affirmed.
Notes
In his concurrence, Justice Rice relies on State v. Spencer,
In Spencer, we determined that a three-and-a-half-year-old victim’s statements were non-testimonial after determining that the witnesses testifying about the statements had heard thе statements in their capacities as a foster parent and a counselor, rather than as state investigators. Spencer, ¶ 23. Because the statements were made to non-governmental agents, the statements were presumed non-testimonial unless the declarant had “clear reason to believe” that they would be used against the defendant in court. Mizenko, ¶ 23. We concluded, however, that the “clear reason to believe” standard was unworkable when applied to a three-and-a-half-year-old victim and, relying on the United States Supreme Court’s Davis decision, we looked to the “primary purpose” of the interaction between the declarant and the witnesses because the circumstances surrounding the statements bore similarities to an interrogation. Spencer, ¶ 22.
Here, in contrast to Spencer, the declarant, Aleasha, was a competent adult and the circumstances bear no similarities to an interrogation. Even if the circumstances were akin to an interrogation, the proper focus would be on the primary purpose of the interrogation or interaction, not, as the concurrence suggests, on the primary purpose of the statement itself. Moreover, though we concluded in Spencer that the declarant’s age made the Mizenko presumptions unworkable, those presumptions were nonetheless initially implicated and necessitated the “primary purpose” analysis; no presumptions are implicated in this case. For these reasons, Spencer is not applicable to the present case.
Recent holdings of the California Supreme Court in Giles and the Washington Supreme Court in Washington v. Mason,
In his special concurrence, Justice Nelson concludes that the Court errs by adopting the reasoning of the California court in Giles. Lest anyone be confused, there is a difference between discussing an opinion from a sister state and “adopting” that court’s reasoning. We do not adopt Giles. Rather, our holding is heavily qualified: the wrongdoing must be deliberate, it must be criminal, and it must result in the victim/declarant’s death. Despite the concurrence’s protestations to the contrary, our holding does not amount to a “broad sweeping statement” as to the applicability of the forfeiture doctrine.
Concurrence Opinion
specially concurs.
¶64 I agree with the Court’s conclusion to affirm the District Court’s judgment on Issues I-IV. However, I disagree with the Court’s analysis under Issues IB, IC, and II, and would affirm under alternate reasoning.
Issue I
¶65 The Court determines that Aleasha’s statement to her neighbor (Issue IB) and Aleasha’s note (Issue IC) are hearsay to which no hearsay exception applies, but that the District Court’s admission of this evidence constituted “harmless error” for which we need not reverse. Opinion, ¶ 28. While I agree with the outcome of the Court’s decision, I write separately to urge the adoption of the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rules.
¶66 Forfeiture by wrongdoing, as this Court accepts, is an equitable concept that prevents an individual from benefiting from his own wrongful actions. Opinion, ¶ 47. In fact, Montana law generally codifies the equitable principle in § 1-3-208, MCA (2005), which states that “[n]o one can take advantage of his own wrong.” While the Montana Rules of Evidence are silent regarding the forfeiture doctrine’s relation to hearsay, the principle has been codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence as Rule 804(b)(6). This rule provides that: “A statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness” is not considered hearsay.
The Constitution does not guarantee an accused person against the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful acts.... [I]f [a defendant] voluntarily keeps the witnesses away, he cannot insist on his [Sixth Amendment] privilege. If, therefore, when absent by his procurement, their evidence is supplied in some lawful way, he is in no condition to assert that his constitutional rights have been violated.
¶68 I would apply this principle to the Rules of Evidence as well. However, despite a previous opportunity to do so, the Court has so far declined. We were presented with proposed M. R. Evid. 804(b)(6), the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to M. R. Evid. 802’s bar against admission of hearsay, following a recent rule review process. Support for the adoption was offered by various members of the Commission on Evidence and by district court judges, but the Court rejected the rule. I continue to believe that the rule would serve an appropriate and important purpose in the search for truth which our courts are intended to conduct. The instant case presents a clear example of how a defendant may benefit from his wrongdoing and why the exception should be adopted. Accordingly, the Court’s holding, which applies the forfeiture doctrine as an exception to the Confrontation Clause, should apply with equal force as an exception to the rule against hearsay, which would admit the evidence at issue here.
Issue II
¶69 The Court concludes that Aleasha’s note was testimonial because “the purpose of the note was to explain Aleasha’s untimely death or poisoning, the intended audience reasonably included law enforcement, and the circumstances surrounding the note indicate that an objective declarant reasonably should have anticipated that the State would make use of the statements at trial.” Opinion, ¶ 38. I cannot agree with any of these conclusions because the Court has added its own speculation, or has ignored parts of the note, to reach each one.
¶70 First, the Court states that the “note’s substance indicates that the note’s purpose was to explain her untimely death or poisoning ....” Opinion, ¶ 37. However, the Court does not adequatеly consider that the note gave instruction in the event Aleasha unexpectedly would “become sick and on the edge of death.” In such a sickened state, Aleasha would benefit by giving her medical providers the “answers” she was providing in the note. The Court simply pretends these words do not exist. The State’s argument to this effect is improperly dismissed by the Court.
¶71 Then, the Court concludes that the note was “intended” for law enforcement because it was left in the kitchen. Opinion, ¶ 38. This conclusion is based upon the Court’s surmise that law enforcement could more easily find it there. Assigning an intention by Aleasha to involve law enforcement from this most ordinary of actions is mere speculation. I submit that the note would have been found by law enforcement in any room of the house, and its location in the kitchen, without more, added nothing to the note’s testimonial significance. Indeed, when the “more” is considered, which is virtually ignored by the Court, a contrary conclusion appears. The note was handwritten on a small, single piece of paper and was found in Aleasha’s kitchen among her personal correspondence and bills. The location of the note in Aleasha’s personal home, among personal papers, supports the objective conclusion that the note had a personal purpose and was meant for those who would have been typical visitors to her kitchen. Aleasha made no effort whatsoever to put her message into the hands of officials, to otherwise take precautions to protect or preserve the message for legal purposes, or to
¶72 While the Court states that it “finds no particular inquiry dispostive in determining whether a statement is testimoniad,]” Opinion, ¶ 34, the Court’s analysis implies the question is susceptible to short, simplistic solutions: first, that because the note was more than a “casual remark,” it must be testimonial, and because the note was discovered by a police officer, it must have been intended for police to easily find it. Opinion, ¶ 38. This ignores the further details of the note and the surrounding circumstances.
¶73 When determining if a statement made by an unavailable declarant is testimonial, two Montana cases guide us: State v. Mizenko and State v. Spencer. In State v. Mizenko, we offered initial, post-Crawford boundaries of testimonial and non-testimonial statements for purposes of the Confrontatiоn Clause.
¶74 In State v. Spencer, we elaborated on Mizenko, concluding that where the “clear reason to believe” standard is “unworkable,” we must review the statement to determine its “primary purpose.”
¶75 When considering the note in its entirety under these standards, Aleasha may just as well have intended the note to alert medical providers to the cause of a potential illness, a non-testimonial purpose, or, indeed, simply have offered an explanation to others about the reason for her demise. The salutation “[t]o whom it concerns[,]” just as “reasonably” includes medical or emergency personnel, relatives, and friends, thereby mitigating the note’s potential testimoniаl qualities. The Court ascribes a law enforcement purpose from this broad salutation because it necessarily includes law enforcement. Instead, the Court should infer otherwise: because the generic salutation potentially included anyone in the world, it was not primarily a directive to law enforcement.
¶76 Even assuming that the Court’s reasoning about Aleasha’s note and the reasoning of this concurrence offer competing, objectively reasonable interpretations regarding Aleasha’s intent, it would then be appropriate to consider, as in Davis and Spencer, the “primary purpose” of the note to determine whether it constitutes testimonial or non-testimonial evidence. Here the Court limits the application of our holding in Spencer to only interrogations, Opinion, ¶ 38 n. 1, thereby disregarding the very reason we adopted the primary purpose test in the first place. We adopted the primary purpose analysis because the “clear reason to believe” standard was unworkable
¶77 Pursuant to our holding in Spencer, where the primary purpose of the statement is to assist in future litigation, the statement is deemed testimonial. Spencer, ¶ 22. However, where the primary purpose is to mitigate future harm, the statement is non-testimonial. Spencer, ¶ 22. In analyzing the primary purpose we must consider the totality of the “objective circumstances.” Spencer, ¶ 22. Unfortunately, the Court’s opinion considers only a fraction of the note. Looking at the note as a whole, most of the note discusses the availability of a drug which could possibly cause Aleasha’s sickness or death. The note’s third sentence states: “So, if I unexspetly [sic] become sick and on the edge of death, and perhaps I die no [sic] you will have some answers.” The conclusory word “so” indicates that the note’s purpose is to provide “answers” if Aleasha contracted a serious illness which could bring about her death. The note indicates the cause of her potential sickness (a drug from Mexico that doctors may not know about), and also suggests investigatory leads (Sanchez or his friends) that may be helpful in ascertaining either the type of drug for medical purposes or assigning criminal responsibility — an admittedly testimonial aspect of the note. However, looking at the note in its entirety, and the circumstances surrounding Aleasha’s handling of the note, discussed above, it served largely to alert family, friends, or medical personnel to the reasons she came down with a sudden and strange illness. Consequently, the note’s primary purpose was not to serve as evidence in a criminal prosecution, but to mitigate potential harm.
¶78 Thus, I would conclude that there is neither a “reasonably objective” reason to believe that the note was intended for criminal prosecution purposes, nor circumstances supporting a conclusion that the note was “primarily” written to support a prosecution. Accordingly, while I support adoption of the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception for Confrontation Clause purposes, I believe that the note is non-testimonial and would end the Confrontation Clause analysis at that point.
The dissenting opinion states that the adoption of the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception within the Federal Rules of Evidence is not “a principled ground” for considering adoption of the exception for our state rules. Dissent, ¶ 123 n. 5.1 confess an inability to understand why consideration of the approach taken by the federal rules-and indeed, the approach of many other states who have likewise adopted the exception-on an evidentiary issue is unprincipled. Nor does adoption of the exception eliminate all considerations of trustworthiness.
Concurrence Opinion
concurs.
¶79 Along with Justice Rice, I concur with the Court’s conclusion to affirm the judgment.
¶80 I am constrained to reserve judgment on the wisdom of incorporating the forfeiture by wrongdoing hearsay exception into the Rules of Evidence. If such an amendment to the Rules is again proposed, I will consider arguments both for and against its adoption.
¶81 I must agree with Justice Rice’s analysis concerning the note left by Aleasha. It was not testimonial for the reasons he states in his concurrence. This is especially true in view of the fact that the note was not introduced to prove that Sanchez killed Aleasha, but for the sole purpose of providing relevant evidence concerning whether he did so while acting under the influence of extreme mental or emotional stress.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
¶82 Although I agree with much of the Court’s analysis under Issue III, I conclude that the prosecutor’s misstatements of the law during closing arguments and the District
¶83 Given this conclusion, a discussion of Issues I, II, and IV is, arguably, unnecessary. Nevertheless, given the importance of the Court’s holdings under Issue II, I write separately to explain my agreement and disagreement with certain points in the Court’s analysis. As for Issues I and IV, I agree with the Court’s resolution of these two issues; however, I write separately to express my disagreement with the approach proposed by Justice Rice’s concurrence for resolving Issue 1.1 first address Issue III, followed by Issue II and, lastly, Issue I.
Issue III
¶84 The role of the prosecutor is unique within the criminal justice system. It is not simply a specialized version of the duty of any attorney not to overstep the bounds of permissible advocaсy. See State ex rel. Fletcher v. District Court,
The [prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
Berger v. United States,
¶85 With these well-settled principles in mind, I agree with the Court’s preliminary analysis under Issue III. In particular, I agree with the Court that § 45-5-103(1), MCA, is unambiguous. Opinion, ¶ 52. Section 45-5-103(1), MCA, provides:
A person commits the offense of mitigated deliberate homicide when the person purposely or knowingly causes the death of another human being but does so under the influence of extreme mental or emotional stress for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of the explanation or excuse must be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the actor’s situation. [Emphases added.]
Under the plain language of this statute, the word “reasonable” modifies the defendant’s explanation or еxcuse for his emotional state, not the defendant’s actions. The statute requires the fact-finder to determine whether the defendant’s explanation or excuse for his extreme mental or emotional stress is reasonable. There is nothing in the statute that requires (or even permits) the jury to determine whether the defendant’s response to the extreme mental or emotional stress was reasonable.
The defense counsel -will argue that this was a reasonable response to extreme emotional distress. You must ask yourself, is it reasonable? Was there extreme-extreme emotional distress? Not just emotional distress but extreme emotional distress and was his reaction reasonable. You can argue until you’re blue in the face and you cannot make this defendant’s actions reasonable under these circumstances.[1 ] [Emphases added.]
Then, during his rebuttal closing, the prosecutor reiterated these misstatements of the law several more times:
The Court read you the instructions. The reasonableness of the explanation or excuse must be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the actor’s situation. That is, what would a reasonable person do, not what the defendant did. The evidence in this case shows you it was not reasonable. And if it’s not reasonable, there goes mitigated deliberate homicide.
Defense counsel said this is an extremely difficult case. I would make no comment on that but I will suggest to you, based on your lifetime experiences, was the defendant’s actions reasonable under these circumstances? Your lifetime experiences tell you that relationships come and go, that people get cheated on in their mind, that they are hurt, that they are angry. If it is reasonable then under those circumstances to kill somebody, the streets would be littered with corpses. [Emphases added.]
At this point, defense counsel objected that the prosecutor “is misinterpreting these instructions over and over again.” The court responded: “You may continue with closing. The objection is overruled.” The prosecutor then stated, yet again:
The streets would be littered with corpses if it was reasonable to shoot somebody because they chеated on you and made you angry. Based on your own lifetime experiences you have seen that. You may have been part of it. Did you kill somebody? Did somebody kill you, your friends, other people? No. That answers the question. This is not a reasonable response for a person under these circumstances. [Emphases added.]
¶87 While the Court concludes that these improper statements “tested the boundaries of professional ethics,” Opinion, ¶ 54,1 conclude that the prosecutor crossed those boundaries. Rule 3.1(a)(1) of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct provides that “[a] lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein . . . without having first determined through diligent investigation that there is a bona fide basis in law and fact for the position to be advocated” (paragraph break omitted). Likewise, Rule 3.3(a)(1) prohibits a lawyer from “knowingly . . . mak[ing] a false statement of ... law to a tribunal or fail[ing] to correct a false statement of... law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer” (paragraph break omitted). And Rule 4.1(a) prohibits a lawyer from “knowingly . . . mak[ing] a false statement of. . . law to a third person” (paragraph break omitted).
¶88 Here, there is no legal basis for the version of § 45-5-103(1), MCA, argued by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The prosecutor’s statements of the law were patently false.
¶89 But it is not necessary to draw such an inference. The proposed jury instruction filed by the prosecutor with respect to the issue of mitigated deliberate homicide establishes that he was fully aware of the law under § 45-5-103(1), MCA. That proposed instruction states:
In order to find the Defendant guilty of the lesser offense of mitigated deliberate homicide, the State must prove the following two propositions:
First, that the Defendant caused the death of Aleasha Chenoweth and
Second, that when the Defendant did sо, he acted purposely or knowingly;
Additionally, you must find that at the time the Defendant caused the death of Aleasha Chenoweth, he was acting under the influence of extreme mental or emotional stress for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the Defendant’s situation. [Emphasis added.]
The emphasized language is identical to the pertinent language of § 45-5-103(1), MCA. In other words, the prosecutor correctly recited the language of the statute in his proposed jury instruction but went to the jury and argued a completely different-and false-version of the statute. Given these circumstances, I conclude that the prosecutor’s improper closing arguments did not merely “test[] the boundaries of professional ethics,” Opinion, ¶ 54, but instead crossed the boundaries of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct and violated the prosecutor’s duties and responsibilities set out in Fletcher.
¶90 The Court holds that although the prosecutor improperly stated the law to the jury, Sanchez has not demonstrated that the prosecutor’s misstatements prejudiced his right to a fair and impartial trial. I disagree. The basic premise underlying the Court’s holding is that the District Court provided an unambiguous instruction on mitigated deliberate homicide and the jury followed that instruction. See Opinion, ¶ 58. In this regard, the Court notes that “juries are presumed to follow the law that courts provide.” Opinion, ¶ 57. This presumption is well-established in American jurisprudence, and I do not dispute it. However, I do dispute the Court’s assumption that the jury received an unambiguous instruction on mitigated deliberate homicide.
¶91 Prior to closing arguments, the District Court read Instructions 8 through 19. The instruction on mitigated deliberate homicide (Instruction 17) accurately conveyed § 45-5-103(1), MCA, as follows:
A person commits the offense of Mitigated Deliberate Homicide when the personpurposely or knowingly causes the death of another human being but does so under the influence of extreme mental or emotional stress for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of the explanation or excuse must bе determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the actor’s situation.
However, during the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument, the following sequence of events occurred:
[THE PROSECUTOR:] Defense counsel said this is an extremely difficult case. I would make no comment on that but I will suggest to you, based on your lifetime experiences, was the defendant’s actions reasonable under these circumstances? Your lifetime experiences tell you that relationships come and go, that people get cheated on in their mind, that they are hurt, that they are angry. If it is reasonable then under those circumstances to kill somebody, the streets would be littered with corpses.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I’m going to have to object because he is misinterpreting these instructions over and over again.
THE COURT: You may continue with closing. The objection is overruled.
By overruling defense counsel’s objection that the prosecutor was misinterpreting the instructions, the District Court effectively endorsed the prosecutor’s statement as to what the jury had to decide-namely, whether Sanchez’s actions were reasonable. Not content to rest on his laurels, however, the prosecutor then proceeded to repeat this misstatement of the law:
[THE PROSECUTOR]: The streets would be littered with corpses if it was reasonable to shoot somebody because they cheated on you and made you angry. Based on your own lifetime experiences you have seen that. You may have been part of it. Did you kill somebody? Did somebody kill you, your friends, other people? No. That answers the question. This is not a reasonable response for a person under these circumstances. This is not extreme emotional distress. Thank you.
Immediately thereafter, the bailiffs were sworn and the jurors began their deliberations.
¶92 It is apparent on this record that the jury received conflicting instructions from the court on mitigated deliberate homicide. Under Instruction 17, which was given before closing arguments, the jury was told to decide whether Sanchez, at the time he caused Aleasha’s death, was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional stress for which there was reasonable explanation or excuse. But under the version of thе law provided by the prosecutor near the end of his rebuttal closing argument, the jury was told to decide whether Sanchez’s “actions” themselves were reasonable under the circumstances, i.e., whether killing Aleasha was “a reasonable response for [Sanchez] under these circumstances.” The District Court explicitly endorsed the prosecutor’s incorrect articulation of the law when it overruled defense counsel’s objection that the prosecutor was misinterpreting the instructions.
¶93 A virtually identical situation occurred in State v. Jones,
Three things stand out about the argument in this case: First, the prosecutor told the jury [during closing argument] that a “reasonable belief’ satisfied the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.... Thus, the prosecutor in this case undertook to define reasonable doubt in wholly erroneous terms. Second: The prosecutor’s statement was promptly objected to and the objections were overruled, giving the argument the imprimatur of the trial court. Third: The prosecutor was not content with a passing reference to the subject, but upon the overruling of defense objection, proceeded to repeat his erroneous definition of reasonable doubt.
Jones,
¶94 In the case at hand, the Court reasons that the prosecutor informed the jury that the attorneys’ closing arguments were not
¶95 “American jurisprudence depends on a jury’s ability to follow instructions and juries are presumed to follow the law that courts provide.” Opinion, ¶ 57 (citing State v. Turner,
¶96 In the case at hand, the jury unquestionably received conflicting statements as to the law under § 45-5-103(1), MCA: first, the court’s correct instruction that Sanchez’s explanation or excuse for his extreme mental or emotional stress had to be reasonable, and second, the prosecutor’s incorrect statement, which received the imprimatur of the court, that Sanchez’s actions had to be reasonable. Section 45-5-103(1), MCA, carves a fine line-one that is easily capable of being misunderstood by jurors, particularly when they receive conflicting statements as to its meaning. Under these circumstances, the Court’s assumption that the District Court provided an unambiguous instruction on mitigated deliberate homicide is invalid.
¶97 Before concluding, I note that the Court has imposed on Sanchez a virtually insurmountable burden to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s misstatements. As the Supreme Court observed in Berger,
the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that [the obligations to govern impartially and to do justice], which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none.
Berger,
¶98 In this regard, I believe that the Court errs in not weighing the prosecutor’s misconduct more heavily in the analysis. By refusing to recognize prejudice to Sanchez, the Court not only affirms the denial of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial but also sends the message that there are no adverse consequences to prosecutorial misconduct of this nature. In my view, if a prosecutor knowingly flaunts the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, repeatedly misrepresents the law to the jury, and blatantly ignores this Court’s admonishment in a prior case not to misstate the law as instructed by the judge (see ¶ 89 n. 3, supra), these factors should be weighed heavily in determining whether the defendant was deprived of a fair trial and due process of law.
¶99 That said, the fact that the District Court imparted conflicting versions of § 45-5-103(1), MCA, to the jury is itself reversible error. If one accepts the premise that a jury which is given conflicting propositions of law cannot correctly follow the law, then the entire foundation of the Court’s resolution of Issue III crumbles, as it should. In light of the prosecutor’s repeated misstatements of the law and the District Court’s endorsement of those misstatements, we simply cannot have confidence that the jury was able to properly consider the lesser included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide. Cf. State v. Rogers,
Issue II
¶100 In Crawford v. Washington,
¶101 I agree with the Court’s explanation of these principles in ¶¶ 34 and 36.1 also agree with the Court’s analysis in ¶¶ 37 and 38 of whether the statements contained in Aleasha’s note were testimonial. As the Court observes, the nature of the note was accusatory. It identified Aleasha’s killer and the threatened means of execution, and it stated the exact time and date of Sanchez’s reported threat. It purported to provide “some answers” regarding a crime that would certainly be prosecuted if sufficient evidence, such as the note, were available; and in this sense, the note’s obvious purpose was to speak for Aleasha regarding her unexpected demise should she not be able to speak for herself, i.e., to provide inсriminating
¶102 The State contends that Aleasha’s note “does not reasonably purport to show an intent it would be used prosecutorially but only an intent to direct attention (possibly only medical attention) to the reasons for any suspicious illness.” As the Court observes, however, this contention completely ignores the accusatory nature of the note. Moreover, I find it highly implausible that a person who intends to alert medical personnel to the reasons for a suspicious illness would place such information in a pile of correspondence and bills where it is not reasonably likely to be discovered by medical personnel in a timely manner, if at all. In any event, the State’s argument also misapprehends the pertinent inquiry here, which is not what Aleasha specifically intended but, rather, what an objective declarant reasonably would have expected under the circumstances, Opinion, ¶ 36, i.e., whether Aleasha should have understood (whether she actually did or not) at the time she wrote the note that there was a significant probability the statements contained therein would be used prosecutorially. Under the circumstances presented, an objective declarant in Aleasha’s position would have anticipated that the statements contained in the note would be used in the investigation and prosecution of Sanchez.
¶103 Accordingly, I agree with the Court’s analysis and conclusion that Aleasha’s note contained testimonial statements. In addition, I agree with the Court’s conclusion that the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing applies in this case. However, I do not agree with the Court’s explication of this rule.
¶104 In Crawford, the Supreme Court noted that the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing is an exception to the Confrontation Clause’s categorical bar against the admission of testimonial statements. See Crawford,
¶105 In Davis, the Supreme Court provided further insight into the scope of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception. Addressing the argument that the nature of the offense charged in that case-domestic violence-required greater flexibility in the use of testimonial evidence against the accused, the Supreme Court noted that this particular type of crime is “notoriously susceptible to intimidation or coercion of the victim to ensure that she does not testify at trial” and that when this occurs, “the Confrontation Clause gives the criminal a windfall.” Davis,
¶106 At the same time, however, the Supreme Court noted that the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing may extinguish confrontation claims under certain circumstances:
But when defendants seek to undermine the judicial process by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses and victims, the Sixth Amendment does not require courts to acquiesce. While defendants have no duty to assist the State in proving their guilt, they do have the duty to refrain from acting in ways that destroy the integrity of the criminal-trial system. We reiterate what we said in Crawford: that the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing . . . extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds. That is, one who obtains the absence of a witness by wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation.
¶107 This language-in particular, the Supreme Court’s use of the verb “seek” in conjunction with “undermining] the judicial process” and “destroying] the integrity of the criminal-trial system”-as well as the Supreme Court’s refusal to vitiate the right of confrontation because the charged offense is susceptible to intimidation or coercion of the victim-declarant indicate that the focus of the forfeiture doctrine is not solely on whether the defendant may benefit from his own wrongdoing. In other words, not all conduct by the defendant that happens to result in a witness’s unavailability comes within the doctrine. Rather, the doctrine is directed specifically at conduct by which the defendant “seek[s]” or intends “to undermine the judicial process” or “destroy the integrity of the criminal-trial system” by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses and victims.
¶108 This conclusion is substantiated by the Supreme Court’s observation in Davis that “Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) . . . codifies the forfeiture doctrine.” Davis,
¶109 That said, I recognize that a case such as this-where the defendant has admitted to deliberately causing the victim’s death through wrongdoing and, thus, causing the victim’s absence from trial-presents an unusual situation. There is no evidence in the record that Sanchez sought by this action to undermine the judicial process or to destroy the integrity of the criminal-trial system. Indeed, there was no “judicial process” to undermine at the time Sanchez сommitted the homicide. It would seem, therefore, that the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing, as articulated in Davis, is inapplicable. On the other hand, had Sanchez merely assaulted Aleasha, and had he then caused her absence from trial by admittedly threatening her, the forfeiture doctrine presumably would have applied. Thus, we would be rewarding defendants who admittedly killed their victims through wrongdoing if we did not apply the same rule to them. To avoid this anomaly, I conclude that where the defendant has admitted to deliberately causing the declarant’s death through wrongdoing, then the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applies to that specific declarant’s out-of-court statements.
¶110 On this basis, I conclude that the admission of Aleasha’s note did not deprive Sanchez of his right of confrontation. He procured Aleasha’s unavailability by fatally
¶111 The Court reaches the same result; however, in so doing, the Court relies on principles broad enough to suggest that the forfeiture-by-wrongdo ing exception applies irrespective of whether the defendant had an intent to procure the declarant’s -unavailability as a witness. It is on this point that I believe the Court errs.
¶112 Throughout the Court’s discussion in ¶¶ 40 through 46, the Court repeatedly refers to the “equitable basis” of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception and the maxim that “no person should benefit from the person’s own wrongdoing.” Indeed, this maxim is the foundation of the Court’s conclusion that Sanchez forfeited his right to confrontation in this case. See Opinion, ¶¶ 46-47. Yet, while Crawford and Davis refer to the “equitable” basis of the doctrine, neither opinion states that the doctrine applies broadly to prevent a defendant from “benefiting” from his own wrongdoing. Moreover, if the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applied whenever a defendant would otherwise “benefit” from his own wrongdoing-whether or not that wrongdoing was intended to procure a declarant’s unavailability as a witness-then the exception most certainly would swallow the rule. What if the victim-declarant is simply too frightened to face the defendant at trial? Has the defendant then “benefited” from his wrongdoing and thereby forfeited his right to confrontation? It would seem so under the broad language used by this Court.
¶113 The Court’s approach of relying on general maxims and principles of equity contradicts the Supreme Court’s unambiguous statement that “Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) . . . codifies the forfeiture doctrine,” Davis,
¶114 In sum, I agree with the Court’s analysis and conclusion that Aleasha’s note contained testimonial statements. Furthermore, I agree with the Court that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applies on the facts of this case. However, I strenuously disagree with the Court’s suggestion in ¶¶ 40-46 that the exception applies whenever a person would otherwise benefit from his or her own wrongdoing.
Issue I
¶115 As noted at the outset, I agree with the Court’s resolution of Issue I. However, because we will, no doubt, confront the matter of adopting the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rules in some other context, I believe that it is appropriate to respond briefly to Justice Rice’s arguments on this point (see Concurrence, ¶¶ 65-68).
¶116 I respectfully disagree that we should adopt this exception to the hearsay rules, either by way of our caselaw or by an amendment to the Rules of Evidence. My rationale is grounded in the nature of hearsay evidence and in the reasons we reject hearsay evidence as a general rule and admit it, as exceptions to the general rule, only
¶117 First, as a general rule, “[hjearsay is not admissible except as otherwise provided by statute, these rules, or other rules applicable in the courts of this state.” M. R. Evid. 802 (emphasis added). As noted in the Commission Comments to Rule 802, “the rule that hearsay is inadmissible has been followed in Montana without question since the early case of Davis v. Blume,
The hearsay rule is generally said to exclude out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted because there are four classes of risk peculiar to this kind of evidence: those of (1) insincerity, (2) faulty perception, (3) faulty memory and (4) faulty narration, each of which decreases the reliability of the inference from the statement made to the conclusion for which it is offered. The hearsay rule ordinarily prohibits the admission of out-of-court statements by declarants on the theory that cross-examination can help test for these four classes of error, thus allowing the fact-finder to weigh the evidence properly and to discount any that is too unreliable.
Schering Corp. v. Pfizer Inc.,
¶ 118 Second-and this principle follows from the first-the exceptions to the general prohibition against hearsay evidence are grounded in “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness,” M. R. Evid. 804(b)(5), i.e., a consensus that out-of-court statements made under certain circumstances are sufficiently reliable to allow their admission notwithstanding the declarant’s absence. See e.g. Commission Comments to M. R. Evid. 803(4) (“The guarantee of trustworthiness [underpinning the statements-for-purposes-of-medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception] is provided by the patient’s motivation for proper diagnosis and treatment.”); Commission Comments to M. R. Evid. 803(6) (“The guarantee of trustworthiness [underpinning the records-of-regularly-conducted-activity exception] is provided by the nature of the record and the circumstances of preparation, enhanced by systematic checking, by regularity and continuity which produce habits of precision, by actual experience of business in relying upon them, or by a duty to make an accurate record as part of a continuing job or occupation.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Schering Corp.,
¶119 In sum, as a general rule, the admission of hearsay evidence is not a reliable and trustworthy vehicle for finding “truth”; rather, this form of evidence frustrates that search, which is why Rule 802 exists in the first place. But we admit certain categories of hearsay testimony where the law has determined, based on historical evidence and practice, that there are circumstantial guarantees of reliability and trustworthiness built into these categories of hearsay testimony and that these types of evidence, therefore, may enhance or further the search for truth.
¶121 For these reasons, I disagree that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception serves a role in the “search for truth.” Rather, application of the exception results in a conclusive presumption about the truth of a declarant’s out-of-court statement based solely on the alleged conduct of the accused. More to the point, in most instances, application of the exception is about punishing the alleged conduct for which the actor is on trial and of which he or she is presumed innocent', it has nothing to do with facilitating the search for truth by admitting presumably reliable out-of-court statements.
¶122 We have always examined evidence objected to on hearsay grounds through the lens of circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, and it seems dangerous to me to eliminate this perspective for an entire category of statements. Once we discard this analysis for one category of evidence, why not do it for others? I cannot agree with so readily tossing out our historical litmus test.
¶123 Thus, irrespective of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6),
Conclusion
¶124 Based on my analysis under Issue III, I conclude that this case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. I dissent from the Court’s contrary decision. As to Issue II, I agree with the Court’s analysis and conclusion that Aleasha’s note contained testimonial statements, and I agree with the Court that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applies to Sanchez’s confrontation claims; however, I reach the latter conclusion concerning the applicability of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception on a narrower ground than the rationale underlying the Court’s decision.
Not only did the prosecutor misrepresent the law here, he also misrepresented to the jury what defense counsel would argue. Defense counsel argued the reasonableness of Sanchez’s explanation or excuse for his claimed extreme mental or emotional stress, not the reasonableness of Sanchez’s actions under the circumstances.
Although the State makes no attempt to show that the prosecutor correctly stated the law, the State does argue that the prosecutor’s statements were not improper. The State suggests that the prosecutor merely improvised, resulting in “syntax left imperfect and meaning less than crystal clear.” However, I agree with the Court that the State’s arguments in this regard are incongruous. Opinion, ¶ 54. In fact, the State’s candor to tms Court is questionable in light of its attempt to spin the prosecutor’s misstatements as nothing more than “ambiguous” remarks, “inartfully spoken” and “not exemplars of clarity,” but “fair arguments” if not viewed in “distorted isolation.” These characterizations are disingenuous at best, given that the prosecutor blatantly misrepresented the law, not once, but four times in his two closing arguments. The State legitimately may argue that Sanchez waived his claim of error or was not prejudiced by the prosecutor’s misstatements; but as to those misstatements, the State has an ethical duty to candidly concede obvious prosecutorial misconduct.
In this regard, I note that in State v. Stewart,
I would not necessarily apply this rule where there is a justifiable use of force defense. But since that is not an issue here, I leave that discussion for another day.
This Court has long refused to march lock-step with federal interpretations of corresponding constitutional provisions. See e.g. State v. Johnson,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
¶125 I join Justice Nelson’s dissent on Issue III and would reverse and remand for a new trial on that basis. Like Justice Nelson, it is my view that, if the Court reached the correct result on this issue, there would be no need to address the others. Because various views on Issues I and II are offered by others, I will do so as well, but only briefly.
¶126 On Issue I, I would not adopt the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rules for the reasons expressed by Justice Nelson. This is a matter best considered on a case-by-case basis, at least until such time as we have sufficient experience with the doctrine here in Montana to consider it more knowledgeably.
¶127 On Issue II, I join Justice Rice’s analysis of whether Aleasha’s note is testimonial. I would conclude it is not testimonial, for the reasons so cogently stated by Justice Rice. I also believe Aleasha’s lack of fear or concern through the course of events which occurred in this case-that is, the several threats and going out to Sanchez’s vehicle on the very day she was killed-buttresses that analysis.
¶128 Moreover, I havе grave concerns about the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine in certain cases. In this regard, I agree with Justice Nelson that forfeiture by wrongdoing should not apply in a deliberate homicide case involving the defense of justifiable use of force (that is, self-defense). It also is my view, however, that the doctrine is not applicable in this case where the defense of mitigated deliberate homicide is asserted.
¶129 I understand full well the notion and maxim that no one should benefit by his or her wrong. Indeed, that maxim underlies many legal subject areas, including fraudulent inducement in entering-and tortious interference with-a contract, and most other situations in which a party comes to a court without clean hands. It may well be that forfeiture by wrongdoing should apply as well in certain criminal cases, but I would not apply it here.
¶130 A bedrock principle of criminal law in this country is the constitutional right to confront one’s accusers. Another is the requirement that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Another-perhaps the most-bedrock principle of criminal law is the presumption of innocence. It is difficult for me to embrace the notion that an “equitable” basis such as forfeiture by wrongdoing can sweep away one’s constitutional confrontation rights. Indeed, it strikes me that-in a case such as this where the defense is to admit that the offense was committed but to offer the defense of mitigation-the opportunity to reasonably present the defense is effectively trumped by the admission of evidence that repeatedly highlights the wrongdoing. Thus, while the Court is correct, ¶ 47, that it is the purposeful causing of the death of another which prevents the ability to exercise the right to confront the deceased, the purposeful death was not committed for the purpose of avoiding the confrontation. Stated differently, had there been a homicide for the purpose of preventing the victim from testifying or assisting in a criminal prosecution, I would agree that forfeiture by wrongdoing properly would apply; other factual situations might also support application of the doctrine. I cannot join the Court in applying it here.
¶131 I would reverse and remand for a new trial on prosecutorial misconduct in this cause number.