State v. Weldy
902 P.2d 1 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts is inadmissible under Rule 404(b) if it is not relevant to a disputed issue, such as motive or intent, and serves only to show character. Furthermore, when a statute defines an offense using distinct alternatives that constitute separate crimes, a defendant's right to a unanimous verdict requires that the jury be instructed to unanimously agree on which specific alternative the defendant committed.
Facts:
- Ralph Owen Weldy and Cynthia Weldy were married on May 1, 1993.
- On July 9, 1993, after seeing Cynthia speaking with other men at her job, an intoxicated and agitated Weldy began striking her at their home.
- During the assault, Weldy plunged a 12-inch serrated knife into the wall next to Cynthia's head as she sat in a chair.
- Throughout the night and into the next morning, Weldy continued the assault, at one point threatening Cynthia with a broken glass and at another point striking her with a piece of firewood.
- The next morning, Cynthia went to her second job at the Friendly Cafe.
- Weldy followed Cynthia to the cafe, struck her in the head, and later pulled her out the rear door to continue the assault.
Procedural Posture:
- The Gallatin County Attorney charged Ralph Owen Weldy by amended information with one count of felony assault and one count of misdemeanor domestic abuse in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County.
- Prior to trial, the State provided notice of its intent to introduce evidence of prior assaults committed by Weldy against Cynthia Weldy.
- The trial court admitted testimony about the prior assaults over the defendant's objection.
- A jury found Weldy guilty of felony assault and domestic abuse.
- The trial court denied Weldy's motion for a new trial.
- Weldy, as appellant, appealed the judgment and sentence to the Supreme Court of Montana, with the State of Montana as respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant's constitutional right to a unanimous verdict violated when the jury is given a general unanimity instruction but is not required to unanimously agree on which of two distinct statutory alternatives for committing the single offense of felony assault—(a) causing bodily injury with a weapon or (b) causing reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury with a weapon—the defendant is guilty of?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunt, J.
Yes, the defendant's constitutional right to a unanimous verdict was violated. A general instruction on unanimity is insufficient when a defendant is charged with a single count under a statute that sets forth separate and distinct offenses. The felony assault statute's alternatives—(a) causing bodily injury with a weapon, and (b) causing reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury with a weapon—are not merely different means of committing one crime, but are separate offenses. The jury verdict form and instructions failed to ensure that all twelve jurors unanimously agreed on which specific offense Weldy had committed, making it impossible to determine if the verdict was truly unanimous. Additionally, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Weldy's prior, weaponless assaults. This evidence did not satisfy the 'Just/Matt' test because it was not relevant to prove motive or intent for the charged assault involving a weapon; its only purpose was to show Weldy's character and propensity for violence, which is prohibited by Rule 404(b).
Dissenting in part and concurring in part - Nelson, J.
No, the trial court did not err in admitting the prior acts evidence, but yes, the unanimity of the verdict was compromised. The dissent disagrees with the majority on the evidentiary issue, arguing that the history of progressively violent, weaponless assaults was relevant to show Weldy's motive and intent to escalate his violence by using a weapon to achieve control over his wife. The special concurrence agrees with the majority's conclusion on the unanimity issue but contends the root of the problem was the prosecution's error in charging two distinct offenses in a single count, contrary to statute. The faulty jury instructions were a direct result of this initial charging defect.
Concurring - Gray, J.
Justice Gray concurred with the majority's opinion regarding the inadmissibility of the 'other acts' evidence and joined Justice Nelson's special concurrence regarding the jury unanimity issue.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies Montana's jury unanimity doctrine by distinguishing between statutes that provide alternative 'means' of committing a single offense and those that list distinct, separate 'offenses.' For the latter, the court now requires specific unanimity instructions, compelling juries to agree on the exact crime committed. The ruling also reinforces the strict application of Rule 404(b) and the 'Just/Matt' test, limiting the prosecution's ability to use prior bad acts unless they are directly relevant to a contested element of the charged crime, rather than just showing a defendant's general character. This places a higher burden on prosecutors in both charging decisions and the introduction of evidence, and on trial courts to provide more precise jury instructions.
