CISSEL v WESTERN PLUMBING HEATI

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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: Decided: Filed: ' March 28, 1980 JL'Y 4 19811 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 comp 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 cont 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 . 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 . He 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. (1979) r - Mont. Dodds v . Gibson P r o d u c t s Company , 593 P.2d 1022, 1026, 36 St.Rep. 353; McGuire v. American Honda Co. 348, ( 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 . expert witnesses t e s t i f i e d t o t h a t e f f e c t . Two 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 . w i t h a s p e c i a l t y i n s o i l mechanics. Jones i s a c i v i l engineer 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 proj 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 . t h i s theory. Mr. Myron DesChene t e s t i f i e d c o n c e r n i n g 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. "Q. Can you s a y i t was? DesChene] I c a n ' t say it wasn't. 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 "A. 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 the f i l l dirt. c a u s e d t h e e r o s i o n of 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 For example, w e 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 . 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 supWhere t h e e v i d e n c e i s port the verdict 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 1 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 . 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. ... .. I1 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 conf 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 . " 1/.-, See a l s o ~ t r o u d 1 v . I)eer-Oliver, 1090. 377 F.2d a t 679. Inc. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 112 A r i z . 574, 544 ~ . 2 d 1089, 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 . , - Mass. 393 N.E.2d Commonwealth v . W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 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 . Mont.R.Evid., Rule 6 1 1 ( b ) ( l ) , 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. case. Mr. 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 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 assault 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 consideration 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. Cissel did not request a limiting instruction here. Mr. 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 objection, the evidence of the assault and threats should not have been admitted if the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. Mont.R.Evid. Rule 403, 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 credibility 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 probay 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 circums 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 opport 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.

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.