However, as a common law limitation not displaced by §§ 46-16-503(2) or -504, MCA, the court generally may not allow unsupervised or unrestricted jury review or replay of witness testimony or other evidence that is testimonial in nature. State v. Nordholm , 2019 MT 165, ¶ 14, 396 Mont. 384, 445 P.3d 799 ; State v. Stout , 2010 MT 137, ¶ 29, 356 Mont. 468, 237 P.3d 37 (common law rule applies to jury room submittals under both §§ 46-16-503(2) and -504, MCA ); State v. Herman , 2009 MT 101, ¶ 38, 350 Mont. 109, 204 P.3d 1254 (internal citation omitted); State v. Bales , 1999 MT 334, ¶¶ 19-24, 297 Mont. 402, 994 P.2d 17 (recognizing application of common law rule to § 46-16-504, MCA ); State v. Harris , 247 Mont. 405, 416-18, 808 P.2d 453, 459-60 (1991) (citing Chambers v. State , 726 P.2d 1269 (Wyo. 1986) ). The purpose of the common law rule is "to prevent a jury from placing undue emphasis" on the reheard or replayed testimonial evidence "to the exclusion of [the] other evidence" in the case.
¶ 11 We generally review a district court's decision to deliver exhibits in evidence to a jury room during deliberations for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bales, 1999 MT 334, ¶ 8, 297 Mont. 402, ¶ 8, 994 P.2d 17, ¶ 8 (citation omitted). The evidence at issue here, however, was not admitted, which requires us to determine whether the District Court's error violated Parker's constitutional right to confront a witness against him.
We review a district court's conclusion of law to determine whether it is correct. State v. Bales, 1999 MT 334, ¶ 43, 297 Mont. 402, ¶ 43, 994 P.2d 17, ¶ 43. ¶ 23 Black contends the testimony of Sundance, Heather and Christy was not sufficiently corroborated for purposes of § 46-16-213, MCA, and this Court's precedent. Specifically, he contends the State offered no evidence of facts to connect him to the crime or that the connection was made only through bootstrapping from the accomplice testimony.
¶ 36 Strauss also claims that the District Court erred by making both video tapes available to the jury during deliberations. She cites State v. Harris (1991), 247 Mont. 405, 417, 808 P.2d 453, 460, and State v. Bales, 1999 MT 334, ¶ 24, 297 Mont. 402, ¶ 24, 994 P.2d 17, ¶ 24, for the proposition that a trial court may not "`submit testimonial materials to the jury for unsupervised and unrestricted review during deliberations'." ¶ 37 In response, the State argues that Strauss failed to preserve this claim for appeal because she did not object to the District Court's determination that all exhibits would be made available to the jury during deliberations.
¶11 We review a district court's decision allowing exhibits to be taken into jury deliberations for an abuse of discretion. State v. Stout , 2010 MT 137, ¶ 26, 356 Mont. 468, 237 P.3d 37 (citing State v. Bales , 1999 MT 334, ¶¶ 12, 25, 297 Mont. 402, 994 P.2d 17 ). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without the employment of conscientious judgment, resulting in substantial injustice.
We review a district court's legal conclusions for correctness. State v. Bales , 1999 MT 334, ¶ 43, 297 Mont. 402, 994 P.2d 17. "We review questions regarding the sufficiency of corroborating evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution." State v. Torgerson , 2008 MT 303, ¶ 25, 345 Mont. 532, 192 P.3d 695.
However, the submission of testimonial materials to the jury for unsupervised and unrestricted review is prohibited. Nordholm , ¶ 10 ; Stout , ¶ 29 ; State v. Herman , 2009 MT 101, ¶ 38, 350 Mont. 109, 204 P.3d 1254 ; State v. Bales , 1999 MT 334, ¶ 24, 297 Mont. 402, 994 P.2d 17 ; State v. Harris , 247 Mont. 405, 417, 808 P.2d 453, 460 (1991). The rule prevents the jury from giving undue emphasis to one witness’s statements to the exclusion of evidence presented by other witnesses.
¶8 We review a district court’s decision on the evidence that may be taken into the jury room during deliberations for an abuse of discretion. State v. Stout , 2010 MT 137, ¶ 29, 356 Mont. 468, 237 P.3d 37 (citing State v. Bales , 1999 MT 334, ¶ 24, 297 Mont. 402, 994 P.2d 17 ). A district court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without employing conscientious judgment, resulting in substantial injustice.
But even though a video interview may be part of the evidence, allowing juries to hear testimonial evidence while they deliberate can unduly emphasize the testimonial evidence to the exclusion of other testimony. See State v. Bales, 1999 MT 334, ¶¶ 20-23, 297 Mont. 402, 994 P.2d 17. ¶ 20 We discretionarily may review claimed errors not objected to at trial that implicate a defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights where the error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave the question of fundamental fairness of the trial unsettled, or may compromise the judicial process’s integrity.
This Court reviews a district court's decision on exhibits that may be taken to jury deliberations for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bales, 1999 MT 334, ¶ 12, 25, 297 Mont. 402, 994 P.2d 17. ¶ 27 The record of these discussions shows that the District Court excluded several exhibits from the jury deliberations upon objection by the defense.