08/06/2024
DA 22-0171
Case Number: DA 22-0171
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2024 MT 172N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
CHINA ROSE DAWN DAVIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DC 20-1672
Honorable Ashley Harada, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Deborah S. Smith, Assistant
Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Tammy K Plubell,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Scott D. Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney, Paul D. Vestal,
Christopher A. Morris, Deputy County Attorneys, Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: June 26, 2024
Decided: August 6, 2024
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 China Rose Dawn Davis appeals from her September 17, 2021 conviction by a jury
of the offense of Deliberate Homicide with a weapons enhancement occurring during the
course of a felony pursuant to §§ 45-5-102(1)(b) and 46-18-221, MCA. We affirm.
¶3 On the night of November 1, 2019, China convinced James Eder they should rob
Carl Archer of three ounces of methamphetamine. James was reluctant but agreed to
China’s plan. James suggested bringing bear spray, but China convinced James to bring a
gun, asking “what good is bear spray going to do?” China and Carl traveled to multiple
places through the night and early morning of November 1 and 2. China continually
messaged James telling him to rob Carl at these locations. Eventually, China and Carl
wound up at the Tiger Town Motel in Ballentine, Montana. China told James where they
were and asked when he was going to rob Carl. James again told China he did not want to
do it and to just come out so he can pick her up. Instead, China lied and told James that
Carl would not let her leave and was trying to rape her. James came into the motel room
with the gun and started screaming for Carl to let China go. There was a struggle, and
James shot Carl and ran away, leaving China behind. Before leaving, China grabbed her
2
things, climbed over Carl’s body, and went through his pockets to grab the
methamphetamine. China did not call the police; rather, she tried to convince James to
come back and pick her up.
¶4 About six months after Carl’s death, China sent a message to a friend expressing
her guilt and saying she was going to come clean with detectives in this case. China made
a recorded confession to the police about what happened that night and her role in it. She
discussed how her guilty conscious caused her to confess; how James never wanted to rob
Carl and she had to encourage him multiple times to rob Carl; how she told James to bring
a gun and manipulated him into thinking she was not safe with Carl; and how after James
shot Carl and took off, China stole the methamphetamine from Carl’s pockets and called
James to come back and pick her up. James thereafter pleaded guilty to deliberate homicide
and received a 60-year sentence. The State charged China with Deliberate Homicide
occurring during a felony and added a weapons enhancement for the gun that was used to
kill Carl. China went to trial and was convicted by a jury after a five-day trial.
¶5 At trial, the District Court admitted nine photographs over China’s objection that
showed Carl’s body from various points within the motel room. At sentencing, the District
Court sentenced China, without objection, to pay restitution in the amount of $9,945.67.
The others involved in Carl’s death had already been sentenced to pay the same amount in
restitution jointly and severally. China now appeals the District Court’s decision to admit
the nine photographs and that the District Court did not sentence her to pay the restitution
jointly and severally.
3
¶6 We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Oliver, 2022 MT
104, ¶ 18,
408 Mont. 519,
510 P.3d 1218. A district court abuses its discretion when it acts
arbitrarily, without employment of conscientious judgment, or exceeds bounds of reason,
resulting in substantial injustice. Oliver, ¶ 18. We review a criminal sentence for legality
only, confining our review to whether the sentence is within statutory parameters. State v.
Workman,
2005 MT 22, ¶ 9,
326 Mont. 1,
107 P.3d 462.
¶7 China argues that the District Court abused its discretion in admitting nine
crime-scene photographs which depicted Carl’s body—in whole or in part—in the context
of the rest of the crime scene. Montana Rule of Evidence 403 allows a district court to
exclude relevant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice.” District courts have broad discretion to weigh the relative probative
value of evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice. State v. Madplume,
2017 MT 40,
¶ 32,
386 Mont. 368,
390 P.3d 142. Rule 403 favors admission and evidence only rises to
the level of unfair prejudice if it arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side
without regard to its probative value, if it confuses or misleads the jury, or if it unduly
distracts from the main issues. Madplume, ¶ 33. Even prejudicial or inflammatory
photographs are admissible if they assist the jury in understanding the case. State v. Sigler,
210 Mont. 248, 256,
688 P.2d 749, 753 (1984), overruled in part on other grounds by State
v. Rothacher,
272 Mont. 303, 310,
901 P.2d 82, 87 (1995).
¶8 Here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs.
Initially, we note that potential jury members were asked during voir dire if they would
4
have a problem looking at graphic photos of this nature. None on the panel indicated they
would.
¶9 Several of the challenged photographs only show parts of Carl’s body from a
distance, giving the rest of the crime scene context. These are not unfairly prejudicial as
they are not likely to arouse the jury’s hostility without regard to probative value. Nor
were they likely to arouse the jurors’ passions any more than the testimony and admissions
about China’s conduct that led to Carl’s murder. State v. Gollehon, 262 Mont. 293, 302,
864 P.2d 1257, 1263 (1993) (holding that a trial need not be sanitized to the point that
probative evidence must be excluded). They were helpful to the jury in understanding the
crime and witness testimony regarding the events of the evening.
¶10 Nor did the District Court abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs that
focused on Carl’s body. The jury heard conflicting evidence at trial from James and China
about the events of that evening, who the mastermind of the robbery was, and how a
robbery turned into a homicide. The photographs tended to corroborate James’ testimony
and cast doubt on China’s testimony. They accurately depicted the scene after James fled.
Although standing next to the door, China decided to stay after Carl was shot, climb over
his body, and rifle through his pants to retrieve the methamphetamine that was the purpose
of the robbery. These photos were relevant to the prosecutor’s theory of the case that China
solicited, aided, or abetted the robbery instead of being another victim as she portrayed at
trial.
5
¶11 The District Court did not abuse its broad discretion. Gollehon, 262 Mont. at 301–
02, 864 P.2d at 1263. The photos were properly admitted into evidence to assist the jurors’
understanding of the case.
¶12 In the alternative, China argues that she received an illegal sentence when the
District Court imposed restitution to her individually and not jointly and severally with the
two other people sentenced in relation to Carl’s homicide.
¶13 The District Court had legal authority to require China to pay full restitution to the
victims. Workman, ¶ 19; § 46-18-241(1), MCA. China agreed with the restitution amount
at sentencing and did not object to the District Court’s imposition of the full restitution.
China had the ability to assert any defense during sentencing that she could have raised in
a civil action—including joint and several liability. Section 46-18-244(2), MCA;
Workman, ¶ 19. The District Court’s sentence was objectionable, rather than illegal. We
decline to review an unpreserved claim and put a district court in error for failing to address
an argument not made before it.
¶14 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review.
¶15 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
6
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ JIM RICE
7
