State v. Daniels
682 P.2d 173, 1984 Mont. LEXIS 896, 210 Mont. 1 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the rules of evidence, a prior inconsistent statement is inadmissible hearsay unless the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement. For hearsay within hearsay to be admissible, each part of the combined statement must independently conform to a hearsay exception.
Facts:
- Nolan T. Daniels and the victim, Jimmy John Nolan, had a history of animosity that was well-known in their community.
- On June 7, 1981, Daniels and an acquaintance, Scott Tarver, drove to a bar in Dell, Montana.
- Upon arriving, Daniels encountered Jimmy John in the parking lot, and the two men became involved in a physical confrontation.
- During the fight, Jimmy John retrieved a pair of horseshoe nippers from his truck and struck Daniels on the head, causing a laceration and a skull fracture.
- After being struck, Daniels walked to his car, unlocked the trunk, and retrieved a .357 pistol.
- Daniels then walked back toward Jimmy John and fired four shots, killing him.
- Daniels handed the gun to Tarver and went inside the bar to await the arrival of law enforcement and medical personnel.
Procedural Posture:
- Nolan T. Daniels was charged with deliberate homicide in the Fifth Judicial District Court of Beaverhead County, Montana.
- Following a trial, a jury found Daniels guilty of the lesser-included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction based on the jury's verdict.
- Daniels appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Montana, who is the reviewing court for this opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a deputy's rebuttal testimony, recounting a witness's prior statement about what the defendant said, violate the rules of evidence when the witness has been excused from trial and is not available for cross-examination concerning the statement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sheehy
Yes. The admission of the deputy's testimony violates the rules of evidence. The deputy's testimony constituted hearsay within hearsay, as he testified to what Tarver told him that Daniels had said. For the outer layer of hearsay (Tarver's statement to the deputy) to be admissible as a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1), M.R.Evid., the declarant, Tarver, must be subject to cross-examination concerning the statement. Because Tarver had been excused from trial with the consent of counsel, he was not available for such cross-examination, rendering the statement inadmissible. This error was not harmless, as the statement ('I've got a score to settle') directly undermined Daniels' affirmative defense of justification by portraying him as the aggressor, thus prejudicing his substantial rights.
Dissenting - Justice Gulbrandson
No. The admission of the deputy's testimony, if erroneous, was harmless. The overwhelming weight of the unrebutted evidence demonstrates that Daniels' claim of self-defense was not credible. Daniels' actions—blocking the victim's vehicle, retreating to his own car, retrieving a powerful handgun from the trunk, and then returning to shoot the victim multiple times, including in the back, from close range—would have led a jury to reject his self-defense claim regardless of the challenged testimony. Therefore, the error did not affect the outcome of the trial, and the conviction should be affirmed.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Morrison
Yes, the testimony was inadmissible, but for a different reason than stated by the majority. The statement was inadmissible not primarily because Tarver was physically absent, but because the deputy's testimony did not actually impeach Tarver's trial testimony as required by Rule 801(d)(1). At trial, Tarver testified that he could not remember if Daniels said anything. A statement of 'I don't remember' is not sufficiently inconsistent with the specific, detailed statement relayed by the deputy ('I've got a score to settle') to permit its use for impeachment. Therefore, the foundational requirement of inconsistency was not met, making the testimony inadmissible hearsay on that ground.
Analysis:
This case provides a critical interpretation of the rules for admitting prior inconsistent statements for impeachment purposes under the Montana Rules of Evidence. The majority's holding strictly enforces the requirement that the declarant must be available for cross-examination concerning the statement, preventing the use of such statements once a witness has been excused. The decision serves as a strong reminder to trial attorneys to lay a proper foundation for impeachment while the witness is on the stand. It also underscores how appellate courts analyze prejudice, finding that an evidentiary error that guts a defendant's primary theory of defense cannot be considered harmless.
