October 20 2010
DA 10-0041
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2010 MT 219N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY G. WALTER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DC 09-568
Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
David C. Avery, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Matthew T. Cochenour, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney; Suzy Boylan, Deputy
County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 15, 2010
Decided: October 20, 2010
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Appellant Timothy G. Walter (Walter) appeals following his conviction for driving
while his license was suspended. We affirm.
¶3 A highway patrol officer stopped Walter in Missoula County in June 2009 for a turn
signal violation. The officer learned from dispatch that Walter’s license had been suspended.
The officer arrested Walter for driving while suspended.
¶4 A justice court jury convicted Walter of driving while suspended. Walter appealed to
the District Court and received a second jury trial. The State introduced at this second trial
an order of suspension from the Montana Department of Motor Vehicles that shows that
Walter’s driver’s license had been suspended on January 12, 2009. The State referred to this
order as a “self-authenticating certified copy or portion of the copy of Mr. Walter’s driving
record.” The State used this certified copy to establish that Walter’s license had been
suspended at the time that he was pulled over in June 2009. Walter objected to this
admission of his driving record, but failed to state any rationale for the objection.
2
¶5 The State also introduced other documents showing that the State had sent previous
notices to Walter informing him that he owed money for fines and that his driver’s license
would be suspended if he failed to pay the fines. The jury convicted Walter. Walter appeals.
¶6 Walter argues on appeal that the District Court violated his right to confront witnesses
by admitting the order of suspension without requiring the State to introduce the documents
through a supporting witness. The State claims that Walter waived his confrontation
challenge by failing to raise the objection in the District Court. The State points out that
Walter simply objected without stating any rationale. The State further contends that the
suspension letter did not constitute a testimonial statement that would trigger Walter’s
confrontation right. Walter urges the Court to exercise plain error review if his objection at
trial proved insufficient to preserve his confrontation objection.
¶7 We agree with the State that Walter failed to preserve his confrontation challenge
through his general objection at trial. This Court exercises plain error review only if “failing
to review the claimed error at issue may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave
unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may
compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Davis, 2003 MT 341, ¶ 19, 318
Mont. 459, 81 P.3d 484.
¶8 We deem it appropriate to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of
our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, that provide for memorandum
opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and record before us that our refusal to
engage in plain error review would not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, would not
3
leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of Walter’s trial, or compromise the
integrity of the judicial process.
¶9 We affirm.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JIM RICE
4