No. 14865
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
GARY CISSEL,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
WESTERN PLUMBING & HEATING, INC.,
A Montana Corporation,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Park,
Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Bennett and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana
Lyman Bennett, I11 argued, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent :
Keefer, Roybal and Hanson, Billings, Montana
J. Dwaine Roybal argued, Billings, Montana
Submitted: March 28, 1980
Decided: JL'Y 4 19811
Filed: '
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
A p p e l l a n t Gary C i s s e l i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n by f i l i n g a
c o m p l a i n t i n t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Park County,
b e f o r e t h e Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom. The c o m p l a i n t
a l l e g e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t , Western Plumbing and H e a t i n g , I n c .
(herein Western), n e g l i g e n t l y i n s t a l l e d a water c l o s e t valve
i n a home b e i n g c o n s t r u c t e d by him r e s u l t i n g i n damage t o
t h e home which r e n d e r e d i t w o r t h l e s s . Western answered t h e
c o m p l a i n t by a s s e r t i n g t h e damages complained of by M r .
C i s s e l w e r e c a u s e d by n e g l i g e n c e on h i s p a r t .
The p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d t h e c a s e t o a j u r y on t h e com-
p l a i n t and answer. The j u r y r e t u r n e d s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s
f i n d i n g n e g l i g e n c e o n t h e p a r t of b o t h p a r t i e s b u t f i n d i n g
o n l y M r . C i s s e l ' s n e g l i g e n c e caused damages t o t h e house.
The j u r y r e t u r n e d a g e n e r a l v e r d i c t f o r d e f e n d a n t . The
D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d judgment a c c o r d i n g l y and t h i s a p p e a l
followed.
Mr. C i s s e l and William Patenaude e n t e r e d i n t o a j o i n t
v e n t u r e agreement t o c o n s t r u c t and s e l l a house i n L i v i n g s t o n ,
Montana. Under t h e t e r m s of t h e agreement M r . C i s s e l w a s t o
p r o v i d e t h e f i n a n c i n g f o r t h e p r o j e c t and do t h e e l e c t r i c a l
work. Patenaude w a s t o a c t a s t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r .
C o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e house began i n November 1976 and con-
t i n u e d a t a slow p a c e u n t i l March 1977. A t that t i m e Mr.
C i s s e l t e r m i n a t e d h i s agreement w i t h P a t e n a u d e and h i r e d
John Sexton t o c o m p l e t e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e home.
When M r . S e x t o n began working on t h e house h e d i s -
c o v e r e d t h a t one c o r n e r of t h e s t r u c t u r e had s e t t l e d a p p r o x i -
m a t e l y f i v e - e i g h t h s of a n i n c h . Sexton a l s o a s c e r t a i n e d
t h a t t h e house w a s moving i n a s i d e - t o - s i d e fashion. Sexton
i n s t a l l e d a cement "deadman" below t h e f o u n d a t i o n of t h e
house t o c o r r e c t t h e s e problems. Sexton s t a t e d t h a t no
f u r t h e r slippage o r s e t t l i n g occurred i n t h e foundation f o r
a b o u t t h e n e x t e i g h t months w h i l e h e completed c o n s t r u c t i o n
of t h e s t r u c t u r e .
Mr. C i s s e l c o n t r a c t e d w i t h Western t o do t h e plumbing
i n t h e house. A s of F e b r u a r y 4 , 1978, a l l t h e plumbing had
been completed e x c e p t f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of a t o i l e t i n a
bathroom on t h e f i r s t f l o o r of t h e house. Western had
i n s t a l l e d t h e p i p e t h a t s u p p l i e d w a t e r t o t h e t o i l e t and
sealed it off with a water c l o s e t valve.
On F e b r u a r y 4 , 1978, M r . C i s s e l conducted a r o u t i n e
i n s p e c t i o n of t h e house. He found t h a t t h e w a t e r c l o s e t
v a l v e i n s t a l l e d on t h e t o i l e t p i p e had blown o f f and t h a t
w a t e r was f l o w i n g t h r o u g h t h e i n s i d e of t h e house. Mr.
C i s s e l p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l t h a t t h e w a t e r f l o w from
t h e p i p e washed away a l a r g e p o r t i o n of t h e f i l l d i r t around
t h e f o u n d a t i o n of t h e house. H e a l s o presented testimony
t h a t t h e e r o s i o n of t h e f i l l d i r t c a u s e d t h e house t o s e t t l e
a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e i n c h e s which i n t u r n c a u s e d c r a c k s i n t h e
f o o t i n g s and f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e house, c r a c k s i n t h e s t o n e
v e n e e r i n s t a l l e d on t h e o u t s i d e of t h e house, s e p a r a t i o n of
t h e h o u s e ' s i n t e r i o r w a l l s , b u c k l i n g of s h e e t r o c k i n s i d e
t h e house, and e v e n t u a l l y t h e b u c k l i n g of t h e f l o o r i n t h e
house. These damages r e n d e r e d t h e house u n s a l e a b l e and
worthless according t o M r . C i s s e l .
Western p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e a l o n g two l i n e s t o r e f u t e
C i s s e l ' s t h e o r y t h a t t h e l e a k i n g p i p e c a u s e d t h e damage t o
t h e house. F i r s t , Western i n t r o d u c e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t b o t h
t h e f i l l and f o u n d a t i o n s y s t e m s used by C i s s e l i n c o n s t r u c t -
i n g t h e house were i n a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t t h e s t r u c t u r e .
Second, Western i n t r o d u c e d e v i d e n c e t h a t w a t e r run-off from
a snow m e l t , r a t h e r t h a n w a t e r l e a k i n g from t h e t o i l e t p i p e ,
c a u s e d a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of t h e e r o s i o n of t h e f i l l d i r t .
Mr. C i s s e l ' s a t t o r n e y p u t William P a t e n a u d e on t h e
stand a t t r i a l . On d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n M r . Patenuade t e s t i -
f i e d a s t o t h e procedure followed i n s e t t i n g t h e foundation
o f t h e house and p l a c i n g t h e f i l l d i r t around t h e house. On
c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n Patenaude w a s a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y a s t o a n
i n c i d e n t t h a t o c c u r r e d a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h i s l a w s u i t . He
r e l a t e d a n i n c i d e n t b e f o r e t r i a l i n which M r . C i s s e l allegedly
grabbed him, threw him t o t h e ground and t h r e a t e n e d " t o blow
h i s b r a i n s o u t " i f he d i d n o t t e s t i f y favorably t o C i s s e l ' s
case a t trial.
Mr. C i s s e l r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
1. Was t h e r e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e j u r y t o
s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g of no c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between W e s t e r n ' s
n e g l i g e n t i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e w a t e r c l o s e t v a l v e and t h e
damages s u s t a i n e d by M r . C i s s e l ?
2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n a d m i t t i n g t h e t e s t i -
mony of W i l l i a m P a t e n a u d e c o n c e r n i n g t h e a s s a u l t M r . Cissel
made on him and t h e t h r e a t s C i s s e l made t o him?
Mr. C i s s e l f r a m e s t h e f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l i n
t e r m s of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e jury v e r d i c t .
The s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w o f a n i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s f a s h i o n
is w e l l settled. The C o u r t w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e j u r y ' s
v e r d i c t i f t h e record contains s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o
support the verdict. Dodds v . Gibson P r o d u c t s Company
(1979) r - Mont. , 593 P.2d 1022, 1026, 36 St.Rep. 348,
353; McGuire v. American Honda Co. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 171,
1 7 7 , 566 P.2d 1124, 1127; Big Sky L i v e s t o c k , I n c . v . Herzog
( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 409, 4 1 4 , 558 P.2d 1107, 1109-1110.
F u r t h e r , t h e e v i d e n c e must be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most
f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t on
review. Herzog, 1 7 1 Mont. a t 4 1 4 , 558 P.2d a t 1110.
S e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e r e w a s no
c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between W e s t e r n ' s n e g l i g e n c e and t h e
damage t o t h e house. The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d two c a u s e s o f
t h e s e t t l i n g of t h e house and r e s u l t i n g damages o t h e r t h a n
t h e leaking pipe. F i r s t , Western i n t r o d u c e d e v i d e n c e t h a t
improper d e s i g n of t h e hquse and i n p r o p e r compaction of t h e
f i l l d i r t p l a c e d under t h e house c a u s e d t h e s e t t l i n g . Two
expert witnesses t e s t i f i e d t o t h a t e f f e c t . Kent B r e w e r , a
s t r u c t u r a l e n g i n e e r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f o u n d a t i o n system of
t h e house was i n a d e q u a t e ; t h a t t h e pylons t h a t supported
t h e f r o n t of t h e house were n o t s e t i n bedrock; and t h a t t h e
f i l l under t h e house w a s improper. Brewer d i d s t a t e t h a t
w a t e r f l o w would a c c e l e r a t e s e t t l i n g i n a l o o s e f i l l s i t u a -
t i o n , b u t t h a t t h e s e t t l i n g would o c c u r e v e n t u a l l y even
without t h e water flow. On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n Brewer s a i d
t h e house would have s e t t l e d i n z e r o t o f i v e y e a r s w i t h o u t
any w a t e r flow.
Walter Jones a l s o t e s t i f i e d . Jones i s a c i v i l engineer
w i t h a s p e c i a l t y i n s o i l mechanics. H e s t a t e d t h a t t h e back
of t h e house had been p l a c e d on bedrock and had n o t s e t t l e d .
H e f u r t h e r o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e f r o n t of t h e house had n o t been
p l a c e d on bedrock and had s e t t l e d . Jones explained t h a t h i s
company had t a k e n s o i l samples and r u n t e s t s t o d e t e r m i n e
t h e compaction of t h e f i l l d i r t under t h e house. Jones
s t a t e d t h e t e s t s showed t h e f i l l d i r t was n o t compacted v e r y
w e l l and t h a t t h e house c o u l d be e x p e c t s d t o s e t t l e a S o u t
s i x i n c h e s under t h e e x i s t i n g f i l l c o n d i t i o n s . Based on
t h i s d a t a , J o n e s concluded t h e main r e a s o n f o r t h e s e t t l i n g
of t h e house was improper compaction o f t h e f i l l d i r t under
t h e house. J o n e s f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he o b s e r v e d s e t t l i n g
o v e r t h e e n t i r e f r o n t of t h e house. H e s a i d t h e amount of
t h e s e t t l i n g c o r r e l a t e d t o t h e d e p t h of f i l l under a p a r t i -
c u l a r p a r t of t h e house and t h a t t h e r e was n o t a n u n u s u a l
d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e s e t t l i n g where t h e e r o s i o n of t h e f i l l
d i r t had o c c u r r e d .
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e x p e r t testimony, M r . C i s s e l himself
t e s t i f i e d he w a s concerned w i t h t h e amount of f i l l used i n
c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e house. H e s t a t e d he had t h e cement p i l l a r s
i n s t a l l e d i n t h e f r o n t o f t h e house t o add s u p p o r t b e c a u s e
of h i s concern. Mr. C i s s e l a l s o s t a t e d he w a s g e n e r a l l y
concerned w i t h t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e work M r . Patenaude had
done i n t h e f i r s t p h a s e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e house, t h a t
t h e tamper used t o compact t h e f i l l d i r t p l a c e d under t h e
house w a s a s m a l l o n e g e n e r a l l y used f o r d i t c h o r t r e n c h
p r o j e c t s r a t h e r t h a n a l a r g e f i l l a r e a l i k e t h e house pro-
j e c t , and t h a t no t e s t s were done on t h e s o i l compaction
d u r i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e house.
B i l l Patenaude a l s o t e s t i f i e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e f i l l
c o n d i t i o n s a t t h e house. Patenaude d i d s t a t e t h a t t h e f i l l
d i r t p l a c e d under t h e house was compacted w i t h a tamper. He
t e s t i f i e d , however, t h a t he had no e x p e r t i s e i n p r e p a r i n g
f i l l o r constructing a foundation. Patenaude f u r t h e r s a i d
t h a t no t e s t i n g of t h e f i l l w a s done d u r i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
of t h e house and t h a t h e was concerned a b o u t t h e c o n d i t i o n
of t h e f i l l and t h e f o u n d a t i o n . Patenaude s t a t e d h i s con-
c e r n stemmed from t h e amount of f i l l used and t h e f a c t t h a t
t h e f r o n t of t h e house w a s p l a c e d on f i l l d i r t w h i l e t h e
back of t h e house was s i t t i n g on a r o c k l e d g e .
The second t h e o r y advanced by Western a s a c a u s e f o r
t h e h o u s e ' s s e t t l i n g w a s e r o s i o n of t h e f i l l d i r t due t o
run-off from snow m e l t . Myron DesChene t e s t i f i e d c o n c e r n i n g
t h i s theory. Mr. DesChene i s a n i n s u r a n c e man whom C i s s e l
c a l l e d t o t h e house on t h e day he d i s c o v e r e d t h e l e a k i n g
pipe. DesChene t e s t i f i e d t h e day M r . C i s s e l c a l l e d him t o
i n s p e c t t h e damage t o t h e house w a s a v e r y warm one f o r
February a s it w a s chinooking. H e s t a t e d t h e snow from t h e
t o p of t h e h i l l behind t h e house was m e l t i n g . DesChene s a i d
water from t h e snow m e l t was r u n n i n g down t h e h i l l s i d e
behind t h e house, d i s a p p e a r i n g under t h e h o u s e , and t h a t a n
amount of w a t e r a b o u t e q u a l t o t h e amount d i s a p p e a r i n g
behind t h e house w a s coming o u t from under t h e house i n t h e
f r o n t c o r n e r of t h e house where t h e f i l l d i r t e r o d e d .
Although DesChene r e c o g n i z e d t h a t h e was n o t a n e x p e r t i n
t h e a r e a of w a t e r flow, he gave t h e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y on
cross-examination:
"Q. [ M r . Bennett] A l l r i g h t . I want t o know
i f you know i f t h e s o u r c e of t h e w a t e r which
c a u s e d t h e blow h o l e was from m e l t i n g snow?
"A. [Mr. DesChene] I c a n ' t say it wasn't.
"Q. Can you s a y i t was?
"A. I t c e r t a i n l y a p p e a r e d t o be. I t had t o
come from someplace, and t h a t i s t h e o n l y w a t e r
t h a t w a s l a y i n g around s i n c e when I a r r i v e d t h e
w a t e r was t u r n e d o f f w i t h i n t h e house and i t
was s i t t i n g i n p u d d l e s . "
E n g i n e e r s B r e w e r and J o n e s a l s o gave t e s t i m o n y s u p p o r t -
i n g t h e t h e o r y t h a t snow m e l t run-off c a u s e d t h e e r o s i o n of
the f i l l dirt. B r e w e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was p o s s i b l e t h a t
t h e w a t e r from t h e l e a k i n g p i p e went down a d r a i n i n t h e
bathroom f l o o r r a t h e r t h a n down under t h e house. Both
B r e w e r and J o n e s s t a t e d t h e y o b s e r v e d more r e c e d i n g of t h e
f i l l d i r t between t h e i r f i r s t i n s p e c t i o n of t h e s i t e and t h e
t i m e of t r i a l .
Faced w i t h t h i s t y p e o f e v i d e n c e on c a u s a t i o n , M r .
C i s s e l d e v o t e s a l a r g e p a r t of h i s argument on t h i s i s s u e t o
p o i n t i n g o u t e v i d e n c e c o n t r a d i c t i n g t h e above t e s t i m o n y and
t e n d i n g t o show t h e l e a k i n g p i p e c a u s e d t h e house t o s e t t l e .
T h i s C o u r t h a s r e j e c t e d t h i s k i n d of argument on s u b s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e q u e s t i o n s on numerous o c c a s i o n s . For example, w e
have s t a t e d :
" ' I t is w e l l settled i n this jurisdiction that
wherever t h e r e i s a c o n f l i c t i n t h e e v i d e n c e
t h i s C o u r t may o n l y r e v i e w t h e t e s t i m o n y f o r
t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e i s
any s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o sup-
port the verdict ... Where t h e e v i d e n c e i s
c o n f l i c t i n g , b u t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence appears
i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment, t h e
judgment w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l . ..1 I1
McGuire, 173 Mont. a t 1 7 7 , 566 P.2d a t 1127,
q u o t i n g from S t r o n g v. W i l l i a m s , 154 Mont. 65,
68, 460 P.2d 90, 92.
F u r t h e r , i n S t a m a t i s v . ~ n d u s t r i a lIndemnity Cow (19791,
- Mont. , 601 P.2d 403, 36 St.Rep. 1866, we s a i d :
"Thus, where t h e f i n d i n g s are based on c o n f l i c t -
i n g e v i d e n c e , o u r f u n c t i o n of r e v i e w i s c o n f i n e d
t o d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i -
dence supporting such f i n d i n g s . . . Conversely,
o u r f u n c t i o n i s n o t t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e
i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support contrary
findings." 601 P.2d a t 406, 36 St.Rep. a t 1869.
Thus it i s c l e a r l y n o t t h e f u n c t i o n of t h i s C o u r t t o
d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e on t h e r e c o r d t h a t con-
f l i c t s w i t h a j u r y ' s v e r d i c t o r t h a t t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e on
t h e r e c o r d t h a t s u p p o r t s a v e r d i c t o t h e r t h a n t h e one
r e a c h e d by t h e j u r y . The C o u r t must o n l y d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e
i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u -
s i o n t h e jury u l t i m a t e l y reached.
H e r e it appears t h a t evidence e x i s t s . The p a r t i e s
presented evidence p o s t u l a t i n g t h r e e p o s s i b l e causes f o r t h e
damage t o t h e house. Mr. C i s s e l ' s e v i d e n c e tended t o show
t h e damage was c a u s e d by t h e l e a k i n g p i p e . Western p r e s e n t e d
e v i d e n c e t h e o r i z i n g t h e damage o c c u r r e d e i t h e r b e c a u s e of
improper c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e house o r e r o s i o n of t h e f i l l
under t h e house c a u s e d by snow m e l t r u n - o f f . The j u r y found
t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by Western more c r e d i b l e and found
t h e t h e o r i e s advanced by Western r e p r e s e n t e d t h e c a u s e of
t h e damage t o t h e house. The f i n d i n g i s based on t h e above
summarized t e s t i m o n y by B r e w e r , J o n e s , DesChene, P a t e n a u d e
and even C i s s e l h i m s e l f . The t e s t i m o n y of t h e s e w i t n e s s e s
r e p r e s e n t s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on which t h e j u r y c o u l d b a s e
i t s verdict. T h e r e f o r e , w e w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e v e r d i c t on
a p p e a l on t h e b a s i s of t h e f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d by M r . Cissel.
The second i s s u e p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n v o l v e s t h e a d m i s s i o n
o f t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e a s s a u l t M r . C i s s e l made on B i l l
Patenaude and t h e t h r e a t s C i s s e l made t o Patenaude. Mr.
C i s s e l c o n t e n d s i t was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r t o a d m i t t h i s t e s t i -
mony. H e o f f e r s two r e a s o n s f o r t h e e x c l u s i o n of t h e e v i -
dence. C i s s e l f i r s t contends t h e evidence i s i r r e l e v a n t .
Second, h e a r g u e s t h a t even i f t h e e v i d e n c e i s r e l e v a n t , t h e
evidence should be excluded because i t s p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t
s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighs i t s probative value.
Both t h e s e arguments have been r e j e c t e d i n o t h e r j u r i s -
dictions. Addressing t h e relevancy i s s u e , t h e c o u r t i n
G r a i n D e a l e r s Mutual I n s u r a n c e Company v . Farmers Union
C o o p e r a t i v e E l e v a t o r and S h i p p i n g ~ s s o c i a t i o n ,Kirwin,
Kansas ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 6 7 ) , 377 F.2d 672, s t a t e d , h he f a c t
t h a t e v i d e n c e on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i s i m m a t e r i a l and i r -
r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e o f n e g l i g e n c e d o e s n o t make i t i n a d -
m i s s i b l e i f o t h e r w i s e r e l e v a n t and material on t h e c r e d i -
b i l l t y of t h e w i t n e s s . " 377 F.2d a t 679. See a l s o ~ t r o u d
1/.-, 1
v . I)eer-Oliver, Inc. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 112 A r i z . 574, 544 ~ . 2 d1089,
1090. Concerning p r e j u d i c e , i t h a s been h e l d t h a t e v i d e n c e
i s a d m i s s i b l e t h a t shows a w i t n e s s f e a r e d a d e f e n d a n t i n a
c r i m i n a l c a s e b e c a u s e of t h r e a t s made t o t h e w i t n e s s by t h e
d e f e n d a n t o r a n a s s a u l t on t h e w i t n e s s by t h e d e f e n d a n t
d e s p i t e t h e f a c t s u c h e v i d e n c e a l s o shows t h e d e f e n d a n t may
be g u i l t y of a n o t h e r c r i m e . Commonwealth v . W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
- Mass. , 393 N.E.2d 937, 942; Commonwealth v. Douglas
( 1 9 6 8 ) , 354 Mass. 212, 236 N.E.2d 865, 874.
The r e l e v a n c y of t h e t e s t i m o n y a p p e a r s t o be e q u a l l y
w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d under Montana l a w . Rule 6 1 1 ( b ) ( l ) ,
Mont.R.Evid., e x p r e s s l y a l l o w s a w i t n e s s t o be impeached on
cross-examination. Allowable methods of impeachment i n c l u d e
showing a m o t i v e t o t e s t i f y f a l s e l y . C l a r k e , Montana R u l e s
-
o f Evidence, 39 Mont. L . Rev. 79, 119 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . An a p p r o p r i a t e
a r e a of i n q u i r y t o d e m o n s t r a t e a m o t i v e t o t e s t i f y f a l s e l y
p r e v i o u s l y r e c o g n i z e d by t h i s C o u r t i s f e a r of p r o s e c u t i o n
f o r a c r i m e on t h e p a r t of a w i t n e s s f o r t h e s t a t e i n a
c r i m i n a l case. S t a t e v . P o n t h i e r (1959) , 136 Mont. 198,
208, 346 P.2d 974, 979-980. Thus, f e a r of t h e consequences
of g i v i n g testimony i s a l e g i t i m a t e s u b j e c t f o r c r o s s -
e x a m i n a t i o n t o show a w i t n e s s h a s a m o t i v e t o f a l s i f y
testimony. T h a t i s what Western a t t e m p t e d t o do i n t h i s
case. Mr. C i s s e l had t h r e a t e n e d t o k i l l Patenaude i f h e d i d
n o t t e s t i f y i n a manner f a v o r a b l e t o C i s s e l . F e a r of C i s s e l
c a r r y i n g o u t t h a t t h r e a t d e f i n i t e l y could provide a motive
f o r Patenaude t o g i v e f a l s e testimony a t t r i a l . The t e s t i -
mony was t h e r e f o r e r e l e v a n t t o show a m o t i v e t o t e s t i f y
f a l s e l y and p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o v e r
C i s s e l ' s relevancy objection.
I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t M r . C i s s e l was e n t i t l e d t o a n
i n s t r u c t i o n l i m i t i n g t h e s c o p e of t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n
o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o t h e s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e f o r which i t was
relevant. Rule 105, Mont.R.Evid. On his request, the court
should have instructed the jury that the evidence of the as-
sault and threat should only be considered as it pertained
to Mr. Patenaude's credibility. However, a trial judge has
no duty to give a limiting instruction absent a request at
trial from the party wishing to limit the scope of the con-
sideration of the testimony. Polster v. Griff's of America,
Inc. (1974), 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745, 747; Rader v.
Gibbons and Reed Company (1972), 261 Ore. 354, 494 P.2d 412,
416; Dagget v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. (1957),
48 Cal.2d 655, 313 P.2d 557, 564, 64 A.L.R.2d 1283. Mr.
Cissel did not request a limiting instruction here. There-
fore, we will not disturb the judgment of the lower court on
the basis of the failure to give the limiting instruction.
Although properly admitted over the relevancy objec-
tion, the evidence of the assault and threats should not
have been admitted if the prejudicial effect of the evidence
substantially outweighed its probative value. Rule 403,
Mont.R.Evid. It cannot be denied that the evidence preju-
diced Mr. Cissel's case. On the other hand, the evidence
was relevant to Mr. Patenaude's credibility. Patenaude
testified as to the strength of the house's foundation and
the condition of the fill dirt placed under the house. Both
of these facts were crucial to the determination of the
cause of the damage to the house. Thus, Mr. Patenaude's
credibility was important and evidence concerning his credi-
bility had significant probative value as to the crucial
issue in the case.
This Court faced a similar situation in State v. London
(1957), 131 Mont. 410, 310 P.2d 571. There we admitted
testimony that a criminal defendant's wife had offered to
pay a w i t n e s s $500 t o t e s t i f y f a v o r a b l y t o t h e d e f e n d a n t a t
trial. F u r t h e r , a heavy r e l i a n c e must b e p l a c e d on t h e
District C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n determining i f t h e prejudi-
c i a l e f f e c t of e v i d e n c e s u b s t a n % i ~ . l l o u t w e i g h s i t s proba-
y
t i v e value. Montana R u l e s - Evidence, s u p r a , 3 9 Mont. L.
of
Rev. a t 101. I t s h o u l d a l s o be n o t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l -
lowed M r . C i s s e l t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n h i s r e b u t t a l t e s t i -
mony e x p l a i n i n g t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which he a l l e g e d l y
a s s a u l t e d M r . P a t e n a u d e and r e f u t i n g some o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s
P a t e n a u d e made a b o u t t h e i n c i d e n t . This mitigated t h e
p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of t h e evidence.
C o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e
f a c t t h a t e v i d e n c e h a s been a d m i t t e d under s i m i l a r circum-
s t a n c e s i n a p r i o r Montana c a s e , t h e heavy r e l i a n c e p l a c e d
on t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n making t h i s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n and t h e f a c t t h a t M r . C i s s e l had an oppor-
t u n i t y t o m i t i g a t e t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of t h e e v i d e n c e ,
i t c a n n o t be s a i d t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of t h e e v i d e n c e
s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . The a d m i s s i o n
of t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t , t h e r e f o r e , c o n s t i t u t e ground f o r
r e v e r s i n g t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
Affirmed.
W e concur: /
% dJ u s t ide % x
Chief c 0
Q 4.
)
L Justices
1 U o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t r e a c h e d by t h e m a j o r i t y b u t n o t i n a l l
that is stated.