Kalispell v. Miller

230 P.3d 792 (2010)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Kalispell v. Miller

Montana Supreme Court
230 P.3d 792 (2010)

Facts

Molly Miller (defendant) was charged with obstructing a peace officer. Miller was a probation officer and a parole officer as well as a lesbian, and she was drinking with her girlfriend, Benware, and one of Benware’s coworkers, Amanda Dumke, at a bar in Kalispell, Montana. After Benware had several drinks, Benware threw a beer bottle at Miller and was kicked out of the bar. Dumke and Miller remained at the bar, but as the night continued, Dumke became concerned about Benware and called to check on her. After talking to Benware, Dumke called the Kalispell Police Department, asking them to check on Benware because Benware was upset and playing with her gun. Miller then became concerned that such a call would jeopardize Benware’s job, so Miller called the police back and told them that she was Benware’s probation officer, that Benware was with her, and that Dumke’s phone call was a prank. The police had already gone to Benware’s home and found her not home. Benware had left her house and gotten into a car accident 12 minutes before Miller called the police to tell them that Benware was with her, making it impossible that Benware was with Miller at the time of the call. During her trial, Miller objected to evidence of the nature of her relationship with Benware, arguing that their homosexuality would unfairly prejudice the jury. Miller proposed that she and Benware be characterized as close friends instead. The court allowed the testimony based on the prosecution’s argument that it explained Miller’s motive for choosing to lie on Benware’s behalf. Miller appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Cotter, J.)

Dissent (Morris, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership