State v. Hostetler ( 2002 )

No. 0 1-607
12; THE SUPREME COLKr OF THE STATE OF MONT.A.i;A
200'2 MT 220K
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
'\.C'ILL,IAM HOSTETLER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
111 and for the County of Gallatin,
The Honorable Mark L. Guenther, Judge presiding.
C'OLNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
U7dham Hostetler, Pro Se, Bomnan. Montana
For Respondent:
Hon M ~ k McGratli, Attomey General, C Viark Foxler,
e
Ass~stant
Attomey General, Helena, Montana
Jon hl Hesse, Belgrade C ~ t y
Attorney, Livlngston, Montana
Submitted on Bnefs: August 15, 2002
Dccided. October 1, 2002
Filed:
Chief Justice Karla . Gray delivcrcd the Opinion of thc C'ourt
;t Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(cj, Montana Supreme Coua 19% lntcrnal
Operaring Rules. the following decision shall not he cited as prccedcni:, it shall hc iilcd as
a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by casc title,
Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to
Wcst Group in the quarterly table of noncitablc cases issued by this Court.
12
' William Hostetlcr's vehicle collided with another vehicle when he drove out of the
IGA parking lot onto Silverbow Street in Belgrade, Montana. After a bench trial, the
Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, convicted fiostctlcr of operatin,~7 a motor
vehicle without liability insurance and failing to yield the right-of-way. Hostetler appeals
and we affirm.
73 Hostetler raises numerous issues on appeal. For the reasons set forth herein. we
address on the merits only the issues of whether the District Court erred in treating the
operation of a motor vehicle without liability insurance as an absolute liability offense and
whether thc evidence is sufficient to support Fiostetler's conviction for failing to yield the
right-of-way.
41
' 1. Did the District Court err in trcating the operation of a motor vehicle without
liability insurance as an absolute liability offense?
115 Section 35-2-104, MCA, provides tbat absol``te
liability--that is, liability without
only for an
h, .. a nlental state of knowingly, negligently or purposely--may be irt~posed
'rclng
offense punishable by a fine of not more than 5500 or for which the statutory definition
clearly indicates a !egis!ati-c.c purposc to iinpose absolute liability. Pursuant :c $ 61-6-3134,
MCA, operating a motor vchiele without liability insurance is punishable by imprisonment
in the county jail and, therefore, the first portion of $ 45-2-104, MCA, d a t i n g to the
punishment for an offense, does not impose absolute liability for the offense of driving
wtthout hability Insurance Hostetler contends that 6 61-6-301. MCA. wh~chdefincs the
offense; does not clearly indicate a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability.
6 To ascertain legislative intent in an absolute liability case, we look to the language
empioyed and the apparent purpose served. 3ure 1;. Hztehner (l992j, 252 Monr. iX4. 188.
827 P.2d 1260, 1263 (citation omittedj. The language contained in $ 61-6-301(1), blC4,
states that the olvner of a Montana-registered and operated vehicle "shall contin~iously
providc" liability insurance. Section 6 1-6-301(4), MCA, renders it "unlawf``l" a person
for
to drive a vcl~iele public roads in Montana "without a valid policy of liability insurance
on
in effect" in the statutorily-required amount. Thus, $ 61-6-301; MCA, contains no mental
state element.
77 With regard to clear legislative purpose to impose absolute liability, we have held that
an ohviotis statutory intent to preserve game resources for the benefit of the ptrblic in
recognition of the state's duty to protect public wildlife resources met that standard. See
fIuehtzer, 252 Mont. at 158-89, 827 P.2d at 1263. The clear put-posc of 9 51-6-301, MCA,
is to protect innocent members of the public who are injured on the highways through thc
negligence of financially irresponsible motorists. See tlorcrceMur~tz I;. ffanzptorz (I 9891,
Im.
3
757
235 Mont. 354,357: P.2d 343,341. (citation omitted). We conclude the clear legislative
p u - p o x o f $ G i -6-301. MCA-to prcitcct thcptrblic on Montana highways---indicatesan inicnr
to in~pose liability for the offense of driving without liability insurance.
ilb~01~1te
78 2. is the widenee sufficient to support I-tostetler's conviction for failing to yield the
right-of-way'?
9 The elements of proof necessary to establish that Hostetler failed to yield the right-of-
way are that ( I ) Hostetler was the driver of a motor vehicle (2) who was about to enter or
cross a highway (3) from a private road, driveway, or public approach ramp and (4) failed
to yield the right-of-way to ali .i-ehiciesapproaching on rhe hig'n``ay. 5 6i -8-343, PAC!\.
See
Hostetlcr argues the evidence is insufficient to support element (21, in that there were no
clear boundaries to forewarn a driver that Silverbow Street was a highway.
0 This Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction
to determine whether, vie~ving evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
the
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the case beyond a
2002 MT 7,1/ 15, 308 Mont. 99,q 15, 30 P.3d 089, li 15
reasonable doubt. State v. N~ruer,
(citations omitted). Mere, Belgrade Police Ofticer Mikc Dixon testified that the intersection
at which the collision occuned was marked by "plenty" of features indicating it was an
intersection. He listed dit'fcrenees between the colors of the IGA parking lot and Silverbow
Street road st~rfaces, light post. fire hydrants on either side ofthe road, a street sign, a stop
a
sign, a speed limit sign with a sign above it indicating weight limit for city streets, and a
fence line beside the road. Jason Karp, Belgrade city planner, testified that Silverhow Street
4
complicd with all Iocai and state requirements for traffic control devices and markings. In
addition, both parlies sirbmirtcd plhotographs of the intersccf on into cvidencc. Viewing thc
cvidence in the !ig!~rmost favorable to the prosecution, \vc conclude a rational trier of fact
could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that, when the collision occurred, Hostctler was
about to enter or cross a highway
7 11 We need not address Hostetler's rematnmg issues at length. Hostetler first asserts the
District Court erred in signing an order at the motions hearing which contained material not
of record. This matter is not properly before us because he failed to raise the issue bcfore the
District Court. 'Tee 46-20-i04(2j, MCA; %re v. Sclznzniz. i908 MT 2i0, ?Ti I i-i3, 290
Mon:. 420, fl 11-13, 964 P.2d 763: 77 11-13,
712 Hostetler also ciaims the District Court erred in stating as part of its rationale for rts
decision that
even in the absence of the absolute liability, there's evidence bcfore the Court
that Mr. Hostetler was aware of the insurance requirements of the State of
Montana and for wkatevcr reason elected to drive the 1082 Subaru without
insurance or other evidence of meeting the financial responsibility laws of the
State of Montana.
This rationale is an alternatne basis for the court's decision. Having alrcady determ~ned
the
District Court correctly concluded that driving without liability insurance is an absolute
liability offense, we need not address the alternative basis or Hostetler's claim in that regard,
because it was unnecessary to the court's decision and a defendant may appeal only from
matters which affect his substantial rights. See 5 40-20-104, MCA.
:j? 3 Finally, Hostctkr contends that the District C'ourlcominitted "other significant abuses
ofjudicial discrcticiri," Failed t reprimand the prmccutor leading to plain cmor at trial, "had
o
a flawed theory of prosecution." and shorrld have dismissed the case bccausc the prosecutor
ignored exculpatory cvidence. An appellant must support contentions on appeal with
citations to authorities w17ich support his position. Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P. We will not
consider arguments unsupported by cited authority. Rienznrz 11. Ander-son ( 1 997)>282 Mont.
139, 147, 935 P.2d 1122, 1126-27.
1' I4 Here, most of Hostetler's final contentions are not supported by any authority and,
t1ie1.efor.c. \ve revisc to address ihcrri. i-ioskiict dues acivatice iwo statutory rrtaxim.: of
jurisprudence, but they are not relevant in the present case because they relate to Hostctler's
argument--rejected above-that driving without liability insurance requires proof of a mental
state. He also advances one decision from this Court which relates to his argument that the
prosecutor. did not conduct himself properly, which apparently is intended to support
Hostetler's argument that his motion to dismiss should have been granted because the
prosecution could not prove its case. Having concluded above that suftleient evidence
supported Hostetler's conviction for failure to yield the right-of-\vay, we need not address
this somecvhat unintelligible argument further. Finally, Hostetler makes a passing reference
to his due process right to notice under both the United States and Montana Constitutions.
This argument is premised on a purported lack of notice that Silvcrbow Street exists, or was
properly marked. As such, itl too, is subsunled in our conclusion that sufficient evidence
supports his con\:iction.
6
Wc concur: