STATE v RENDON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 95-063 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERNEST0 RENDON, Defendant APPEAL FROM: and Appellant. District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis and Clark, The Honorable Thomas C. Honzel, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: James B. Obie, Attorney Helena, Montana For at Law, Respondent: Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Cregg W. Coughlin, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mike McGrath, Lewis and Clark County Vicki Frazier, Deputy County Attorney, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: Attorney, August 10, September 1995 21, 1995 Justice Terry N. Trieweiler Defendant the District Clark (3), the crime Montana for with felony MCA. State a nonjury Rendon raises 1. Did on while the the victim's and ยง 45-5-201(l) five (a) guilty of years in the was suspended, sentence his in Lewis in of to serve appeals issues based conviction. We affirm on appeal: Court basis err of when it denied an allegation Rendon's that the motion victim was stand? District evidence filed Court. District on the Did excluded District two the mistrial 2. the Court. he was found Rendon was sentenced Rendon the District trial, his of by information, in violation However, of opinion Judicial assault, Prison. judgment coached First conditions. on several for the Following charged. the Rendon was charged Court County, and the Ernest0 delivered Court intended to abuse its when it the attack discretion credibility of the Schmaus, and mother? FACTUAL BACKGROUND Ernest0 Rendon lived M.S., her son, for several after M.S. in their with family shift. Schmaus stayed her with a.m., Rendon evening into when M.S.'s told her he hit bedroom to work her head that check night on him, 2 coffee but and table. told looked a 4-11 drank home at injured Rendon Rendon worked arrived son had been on the 1994, Schmaus When Schmaus that Melanie On May 30, home while after his girlfriend, years. co-workers. beers his p.m. several around earlier in Schmaus her to let 2 the went the child sleep. bruise across When M.S.'s While the The James Hoyne, marks at side side the face in the room coaching to describe trial, had "hitted side of his After witness the M.S. the who Hoyne described face testified the him. to the examined he was and significant M.S. M.S. at lines by towards caused the told him Hoyne time, but had happened testified used his also that during Rendon the that presented its that had been M.S. 3 left an inch to be starting forehead." Dr. M.S. force by a hand. examination that did that Schmaus not need was any him. had been mad at him and to demonstrate hand and swung it indicated on the struck testified to on the by significant When he was asked right bruises the been that he had bruises appeared ear having M.S. approximately [sic] Dr. face. the were bruises fast." State M.S. where his M.S. face. took when he examined what M.S. struck that across me really had happened, Hospital, had Schmaus Dr. Hoyne, probably examined doctor. with in and room the hit day Rendon 1994, what he had been At 1, by half-an-inch, Dr. a large next that of consistent to by M.S. the separate that see at trial and going According work as "three testified could emergency face. cheek were from Peter's side his separated Hoyne and of Schmaus face. on June the right of M.S.'s at St. M.D., on the wide, day, Hoyne testified left M.S.'s she was told room Dr. of bedroom, returned following emergency the side Schmaus bruises, in Rendon evidence, coached toward the had pushed Rendon by what left him. called a courtroom a observer the while observer would questions, head he gave and would On the mistrial. testimony. nod or shake M.S. motion. his However, her head in pause basis this motion stated that based on its anyone for advice while he gave concluded of "yes" that or most "no" Rendon of the answers attempted Schmaus's intense contention that everything she to can would against further had that Schmaus against him. The court, conclusion that instructed her excluded mistrial while court's 404, District on the on the The mistrial the Court not look to court in also the form to show trial was Rendon's Schmaus lie It would to whatever this son the extent evidence to "do would testify falsely evidence, based on of err 1 when it an allegation denied that Rendon's the victim motion for was coached stand? standard is a was irrelevant. Court basis for District at him. that the coached. that and claimed however, it against indicate moved was not been State's with did evidence ISSUE Did have [Rendon] Rendon suggest its could witness, the The testimony of and bias bias victim testimony. introduce dislike this necessary." critical which The the his to Rendon denied. observation, the consistently testimony, was to response and answer of the According of whether ruling 865 P.2d review there is is 1098. a district clear erroneous. 1096, for and convincing State This court's V. Greytak Court 4 evidence (1993), has held denial that that 262 Mont. a mistrial of a the 401, is appropriate Only necessity and impartial when trial. Rendon his motion where maintains the based to of admitted if during that judge, his on the the he did on the alleged and that fair whom and a view noted victim his Sixth contends was as evidence of only coaching. This M.S. to before that not denied of the alleged observer he did when it he offers the have erred he was denied Rendon hand, manifest a coaching that courtroom denied Court witness, not other been of 1098. who observed the testimony at observer. was watching The trial has District confront a witness witness demonstration He asserts courtroom testimony M.S. the observer. right the a defendant that mistrial by a courtroom actually the is Greytak, 865 P.Zd for Amendment there determine he responded. he had watched appear to M.S. be looking for assistance. Based not err when district record, we conclude denied it court coaching to on the Rendon's is in determine the and if has been a position such whether best District for motion has occurred, of a witness the that coaching to so, Court did mistrial. The determine has broad whether discretion prejudicial to either party. The court looking to anyone questions in concluded that answers stated that to complete most could that aid based his on its observation, testimony. sentences in of responses have M.S.'s been coached 5 his M.S. M.S. answered own words. from were the was not critical The court not audience. the type also of We conclude that the that District for is Court's was erroneous. motion there not denial We affirm the clear of and convincing Rendon's District motion Court's evidence for denial mistrial of Rendon's when it excluded mistrial. ISSUE 2 Did the evidence District intended for review court abused Mont. 293, 301, 864 evidence is discretion of discretion, prohibited not about the by the motive The the of Court that to of was falsely make the existence abuse at 1263. it mother, testimony and Schmaus Rendon establish him of when of conduct. to sound of erred Rendon of the the victim's against the at as argues bias trial or and to based on son. the evidence relevant to consisted between excluded the about acts her left a showing evidence evidence defines M.R.Evid., tendency testify testimony District conclusion the determination Court evidence specific to Schmaus absent relationship of is District proffered several rulings Gollehon , 864 P.2d the introducing The purpose of influence that evidentiary The and admissible and mother? State v. Gollehon ( 19 9 3 ) , 1263. be overturned. antagonistic illustrated 1257, judge, contends Schmaus. court discretion. P.2d trial of the victim's district its relevant him from Melanie that the will Rendon discretion of the whether its the credibility whether 262 its abuse to attack The standard is Court proposed was evidence of 6 any evidence, irrelevant. as fact Rule having "evidence that is of 401, any consequence to the than determination it would of be without The District and Schmaus conviction the would with his Furthermore, hostility have, We discretion when credibility of We affirm been the it but held between that testimony. Schmaus's and Rendon's evidence and the Court which was testimony direct of was already the and Rendon, Rendon's Schmaus's undisputed. by physical District Court evidence proffered did not designed to felony assault. mother. conviction / We co*cuc: probable aware of evidence cumulative. excluded appellant's less relationship District the the victim's or poor of events Schmaus that conclude on primarily since best, the decision, version between at its of foundational was supported inconsistent note depend basically more probable evidence." took in not was conviction M.S. Rendon action the Court did testimony the for JU ice abuse attack its the
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
