Background
Andrew Pierce Lake was retried for attempted deliberate homicide after the Montana Supreme Court reversed his 2018 conviction and ordered a new trial. The charge arose from Lake’s March 2017 stabbing of Ryan Zitnik outside a Helena bar. Lake and Zitnik gave conflicting accounts of the encounter, and Lake asserted justifiable use of force.
The State’s motive theory was that Lake stabbed Zitnik because Zitnik had criticized and discussed Lake’s prior comments concerning child sexual abuse. In the first trial, the Supreme Court held that the comments could be relevant to motive but reversed because the State used them explicitly and repetitively in a manner that was unfairly prejudicial.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Lake’s conviction. It held that Lake did not preserve a broad challenge to all testimony about the comments because, unlike at his first trial, he filed no motion in limine and said he would make contemporaneous objections. He did not object when the State first elicited explicit testimony about his alleged rape dream.
The Court therefore reviewed the particular objections Lake made to testimony about his nickname and a joke involving a five-year-old. It concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing generic references to the nickname, and that admitting the explicit joke, though acutely prejudicial, was not an abuse of discretion because it was probative of the deteriorating relationship between Lake and Zitnik and Rule 403 favors admission unless unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
Key Takeaways
- A party that agrees to make trial objections must do so contemporaneously to preserve evidentiary issues for appeal.
- Other-acts evidence concerning child sexual abuse creates a serious risk of unfair prejudice, even when offered for a permissible motive purpose.
- Generic references may supply similar motive evidence with less prejudice, but the trial court retains broad Rule 403 discretion.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the preservation consequences of failing to object at retrial after a prior appellate reversal. It also confirms that a prior ruling allowing evidence for a non-propensity purpose does not authorize unlimited use of inflammatory details, while leaving trial courts substantial discretion over limited, motive-related evidence.