“on probation” was not admissible under Rule 404(b)

DA 08-0107
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2009 MT 27
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JAMES DERBYSHIRE,
James Derbyshire was convicted in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade
County, of one count of criminal possession of dangerous drugs (marijuana) with intent to distribute, a felony, in violation of § 45-9-103, MCA (2005). He appeals, arguing that the District Court erred in denying his pretrial motion to exclude evidence of his status as a probationer. We agree with Derbyshire and further conclude that the State has not demonstrated the error was harmless. We accordingly reverse Derbyshire’s conviction, vacate the District Court’s judgment, and remand this case for a new trial.
CONCLUSION
Testimony by the State’s witnesses that they were “probation officers” and that
Derbyshire was “on probation” was not admissible under Rule 404(b) or the transaction
rule. Thus, the District Court erred in denying Derbyshire’s motion to exclude evidence
of his status as a probationer. The State has not demonstrated that this error was
harmless. We accordingly reverse Derbyshire’s conviction, vacate the District Court’s
judgment, and remand this case for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.