## Facts

- Molly Miller, a state probation and parole officer, was romantically involved with Jennifer Benware.
- On February 9, 2008, Miller, Benware, and Amanda Dumke drank at a Kalispell bar; Benware was evicted after disorderly conduct.
- Dumke later called Benware, became alarmed by Benware’s upset condition and mention of a gun, and requested a police welfare check.
- Miller called police dispatch, identified herself as an officer, and stated the welfare-check call was a “prank” and that Benware was with her at the bar.
- Benware was not with Miller; she had left her residence and was involved in an automobile accident shortly before Miller’s call.
- The prosecution argued Miller knowingly gave false information to obstruct the welfare check; it offered relationship evidence to show motive.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted repeated references to Miller’s homosexuality and allowed evidence of Benware’s accident; it also permitted the prosecution to treat Benware as a hostile witness and use leading questions.
- A municipal-court jury convicted Miller of obstructing a peace officer; the district court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting repeated references to Miller’s sexual orientation and same-sex relationship to prove motive was improper under Montana Rules of Evidence 401 and 403.
2. Whether evidence of Benware’s automobile accident was improperly admitted as unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution to treat Benware as a hostile witness under Rule 611(c).

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, but left the conviction intact.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by permitting repeated, explicit references to Miller’s homosexuality where less prejudicial descriptions could prove motive.
- The court held the error regarding sexual-orientation emphasis was harmless because the remaining evidence of knowing falsity and obstruction was strong and the verdict was not materially affected.
- The court affirmed admission of limited accident evidence as relevant to the timeline and to contradict Miller’s claim about Benware’s whereabouts.
- The court affirmed the hostile-witness designation, holding the trial court acted within its discretion based on the witness’s demeanor and alignment with the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.  
- Evidence touching on a defendant’s sexual orientation can be probative (including for motive) but requires careful Rule 403 balancing, including consideration of less prejudicial alternatives and limiting the manner of presentation.
- Even when evidence is admitted in error, a conviction stands if the error is harmless—i.e., it did not materially affect the verdict in light of the record.
- Evidence of surrounding events may be admissible when necessary to establish timeline and falsity, so long as the court limits prejudicial detail to what is needed for that purpose.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to control witness examination and may permit leading questions for hostile or adverse witnesses.

## Conclusion

The court held that the prosecution’s repeated emphasis on the defendant’s sexual orientation should have been curtailed under Rule 403, but the error was harmless because independent evidence showed she knowingly provided false information to impede a welfare check; limited accident evidence and the hostile-witness ruling were affirmed, and the obstruction conviction stood.


City of Kalispell v. Miller, 230 P.3d 792 (Mont. 2010)