State v. A. Erickson ( 2023 )

ORIGI AL 10/10/2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 22-0510 DA 22-0510 STATE OF MONTANA, FLED Plaintiff and Appellee, OCT 1 0 2023 BOW:al Greenwood ocIrN Of Supreme Court v. t48 11t ID I EnR na ALAN EDWIN ERICKSON, Defendant and Appellant. The Appellee, State of Montana, requests that the record in the above-entitled case be supplemented to include an excerpt of the trial transcript from State v. Robert Erickson, First Judicial Court Cause No. CDC-2021-318, wherein Robert Erickson, the Appellant's father and co-defendant, was convicted by a jury of animal cruelty. Alan and Robert Erickson were both charged with animal cruelty relative to the same incident. Alan Erickson pled guilty to the charges prior to his father's trial and thereafter testified during his father's trial. The Honorable Kathy Seeley presided over both Robert Erickson's and - Alan Erickson's trial. The District Court held a combined sentencing hearing where both defendants were present and represented by counsel. During the sentencing hearing the court considered and established an amount of restitution. Alan Erickson, in this appeal, is challenging the District Court's judgment and sentence that ordered him jointly and severally liable for the same restitution amount as his father. The State requests that it be allowed to supplement the record with that portion of the transcript in Robert Erickson's trial wherein Alan testified: The State maintains that supplementation is allowed under M. R. App. P. 8(6) and to provide a complete record. Alan Erickson objects and maintains that M. R. App. P. 8(6) allows supplementation of the record only in cases where something is omitted from the record of the case at issue. Further, Alan Erickson's counsel notes that it did not have access to the transcript when drafting Erickson's brief and, futher, that Erickson's motivation behind his testimony during his father's trial is an important consideration that is beyond the purview of the pending appeal. We agree. To allow supplementation of the record as the State requests would open the record to matters not addressed by the District Court or the parties in this proceeding. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to seek to supplement the record is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send a copy to counsel of record. DATED this l day of October, 2023. Chief Justice P(L.LJ: N C/6A 2