WPC 5(#s wL@Y:`oC6?3}X+qTZC g Oui6sn ô0OmC#e*wC彝C?zR؀CHÆ̋fX/o/;dXB>f,Ge-7'7$3!Ѽ"wkpSX%G%kuYx鍍ġdVo3.暿y*keg=*cw 㬙Jvea#W + >$ і{+Hb>!ETzŧL}ݡ>QJR["Ρ Nʝܬ+QB9d89V(-,08 l:Q+ܺϐg%`>!wR \)դosI5Vkt%sM&|A.VwG#,| իrc˥Sy#!$ % %% 0G%UF&NZ&^ \&w@h&4&&& m& 0A& 1%' 1u' 0T!( 0cu( 1( 0fh_)UN).*U!NC*U N*.*> +U >K,",",~,.K- y- 04- 1- 0E.U*.@P/UN^/ 0w/ 0#0 10 151 11 1C2 12 1Q3 13 1_4 14 1m5 15 1{6"7 0$7 07 8 02C 1 D 1D 1E 1E 1)F 1F 17G 1G 1EH 1H 1SI 1I 1aJ 1J 1oK 1K 1}L 1M 1M 0N 1O 1O 1P 1P 1Q 1Q 1+R 1R 19S 1S 1GT 1T"UU 1wU.U",VcNVNW 0GW"WXX  tY"Y 0GY"Y Zo,-Z j >pz"("J"l"" ҈.".<"j  ".  jRp "Œ .ύ " -  я, ,0 \Qz "˓ ]&  ]  _  $\ ^  {d  = \x ,b a &f& d-   = W XRv 0T)Ȭ \ k; į; ?7 $v; ճE .4  bTn "¶2 $<: v2 ĺ "hU ߽i ,f[   _ $|  i (%M ( $M $K<o   _{ Bk >    "T'  { L #B :T 8G0 $1  6 > J<h  * 6  @ \ l5 $7 &d8   6 0 ^  p< X  @` (Hp >f 4 ";  E\a 0  ^4 & : Vt 0` Y  (+ 6P      8 U<m   E 0H & . 2 G ^jr   ""& H *d j $, <  U a  oy (a (q   *J?+    2'  $Y .} } @J   <  A ._   ( ,s @nc " (`( *  ,?  +5K $F @ "Hj $Pt Ho 8  H  \ j  !f " $q# "# # ## $$ $ % $&=& $'<(  Q)r[) ,*&* ,%=, b- - -Z- $/ &/UFB// ,r0:0 1  1B1 @3 .\3 3 ,3=3 5%5 *686 8 48H8 *19[9 $A:e: *N;=x; <a< (4>\> *E?o? @" AUN-Ac{A B  BoC uD DcD  F]2F G4G HIH 6HJ~J $LL%L $qM!M  N  N<N P :PHP 04Q7dQ  RR $S SdS ,=U iU }U U  UU IWPgW X.X  Y  Y Y7Y $Z"AZ cZ wZ Z  Z ZZ[ ,*]V] F6_S|_ `;` $bb>b ,cc .dd (dff , h8h ( i Hidi :j7&k ]l 6wl  lgl noG8n  # -";"]"."϶" 4?G =@Y"."" "- 4O" V +; "P r &) "0 8 ZX *o <K. <      - =  M  Y[e   *%  ( H X jx    b  !"?_a $     (K< $"" ."#.E"s4~~GQ 0 B 0K D+> A 04 A B7T B7 D3 B* D3 B*R D3| D3 B D5 D-444?aUFSSSS?AGO,,,,0*X(0$XXXX<09Z .Courier New Regular{+c b'Uc'Dd'He'h'Di'Vj'k'dl'Um'DRu*,)wp쁃3|xm'U(V$8   (CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(,A$0  8` (#(#  (;$2  A  .3  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(@$0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# ` (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular $     X (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular$A`6UniversCondensed Italic $     H  4 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%XjStatev.Simmons,    2000MT329,___Mont.___,15P.3d408#z$ %^M##X5X z$l#\  `&Times New Roman           t    \R3' Draft\ $       ($  CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A.(w$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2  A  .3  0 (# (#%2A`ArialgD:\IMAGES\BORDERS\BASIC\BORBS481.WMF(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(OA$0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#(cy$0  0` (#(#2  A  .3  0 ` (#` (# eiCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.A.1.1.1.1.1. uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.( CEKQW]cioAutoList7i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList8I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.( CEKQW]cioAutoList9A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(*EGMSY_ekqAutoList10A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(:EGMSY_ekqAutoList11A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(JEGMSY_ekqAutoList12A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ZEGMSY_ekqAutoList13A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(jEGMSY_ekqAutoList14A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(zEGMSY_ekqAutoList15A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.     (h$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2  A  .3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2  A  .3  0h(#h(# GallatinMcKeeRavalliRegnierSteinmentzHulseKaluzaHubbelwarrantlesscurtilageHubbelsPurdieDaubertMerrell HGNLeaphart DUISchaffPizzolaKootenaiWinterrowd nunc tuncBrummer suasponteHuertaTreiweilerGriffingLimineIntoxilyzerThymer EvidTrieweilerSattlerWidenhoferRothschillerRotchschiller BACNewillNearyKidnappingiSellnerBarnhartSavariaWeigleCuriam PostconvictionRanta postconvictionJ.J.G. W.Z. DFSJ.M.W.E.H.KalispellGildersleeveWessellnonciteablelicensureChastainoverbroad reaOverbreathfannypackTurnage,CSteinmetzOlesonRichlandWakefordScheetzMcElderryKeyesLaFromboiseSidmoreBowlesCooneyStrizichBelgardeGregoroffHayworthcodefendantMirandizedHuetherMedranoMavrosM.R.EvidsilentioMcSloyFentonBroadwaterSpousalLancioneScheffelmanGestaecodefendantsgestaeextrajudicalHowieD.B.S.Cochran Weis HeggLafleyCasselldumpsterSilverBowPartinBromgardIngrahamLindemanBaischGreenomisperceptionundeposited A.E.DPHHS TIAA.W.M. U.A. J.H.pedophiliaS.L.M. EJPALangfordantipsychoticStricklandDeavilaChesarekDahlin(3$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2  A  .3  0(#(# 5EGMSY_ekqAutoList161.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EEGMSY_ekqAutoList171.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(UEGMSY_ekqAutoList181.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList191.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.)eEGMSY_ekqAutoList251.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(jEGMSY_ekqAutoList20A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(zEGMSY_ekqAutoList21A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(5EGMSY_ekqAutoList221.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList23A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. EGMSY_ekqAutoList24A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A.(uEGMSY_ekqAutoList261.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList271.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList281.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList291.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(UEGMSY_ekqAutoList301.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList311.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. uEGMSY_ekqAutoList321.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList33A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. EGMSY_ekqAutoList341.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(!$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2  A  .3  0p(#(#(EGMSY_ekqAutoList35A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.( EGMSY_ekqAutoList36A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList37A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. *EGMSY_ekqAutoList38A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(:EGMSY_ekqAutoList39A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList401.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList411.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.( EGMSY_ekqAutoList42A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList43A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(*EGMSY_ekqAutoList44A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(:EGMSY_ekqAutoList45A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(JEGMSY_ekqAutoList46A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.     (EGMSY_ekqAutoList471.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. $            Y 0!X[XXX  _ %XjXXX[%~X%XjStatev.Hill, 8   2000MT308,57State_Rptr_.1301,14P.3d1237 #Z %~P##X[X Zo#(oB$XX=X      N 0!X9^XXX  _ XXXX9^XXStatev._Vallier_,    2000MT225,301Mont.228,8P.3d112 #uM##X9^Xul#aVallierCases     (oB$XX=X     CastleWPCll!l,ƚ:5 T 9 5 : -- --$a-a -a-----$/ /   / ----$   ----$H H H ----$HX X H HH HX ----$X X H H X ----$X p Xp X ----$ ----$   ----$   ----$ X X ----$ H H  ----$//H H /----$/ / ----$/ /   / ----$/ // /  / ----$/ p p/ / ----$ ----$ p p ----$X/ Xp Hp H/ X/ ----$W X H H W ----$/ /   / ----$   ----$   ----$ / /  ----$ p p ----$ p p ----$ H H ----$   ----$ ----$ ----$X X H H X ----$/~/--~/~----$--==-----$==----$HHH----$X~X-H-H~X~----$X~~XX~----$~VV~~----$VVffV----$~ff~~----$.X-X==.----$----$///----$----$----$//----$^p^p----$^^nn^----$~~~----$XXHHX----$----$----$```----$777----$//----$(p(p77(----$(pp((----$QHQH``Q----$----$----$----$XQXHHQXQ----$     ----$ a a   ----$QH Q a aH QH ----$X QX QH H X ----$     ----$ 9 9p p  ----$) ) 9 9 ) ----$ ) )   ----$     ----$   ----$ H H   ----$H H ----$QQ/ a/ aQ----$ / Q/ Q  / ----$/ /   / ----$/   / / ----$   ----$  p p ----$/ p p / / ----$W X H H W ----$// /  / // ----$/ / > > / ----$_ _ o o _ ----$o   o o ----$o   o o ----$     ----$>   > > ----$  9 9   ----$)) 9 9)----$  ----$     ----$~--~~----$-a-a==-----$QQ=a=aQ----$QQ----$~--~~----$~9~9~----$)~)V9V9~)~----$V)V)ffV----$~f f ~~----$.-==.----$  ----$----$QQaaQ----$ QQ  ----$----$^^----$^^nn^----$~~~----$----$----$///----$/`/>>`/`----$_7_oo7_7----$ooo----$o((7o7o(----$(((----$>QQ`>`>Q----$ 99  ----$))99)----$  ----$QQQ--In Re Inquiry Into A.W., D.G., and M.G., Jr., 1999 MjRule 33(c)Other Authorities p 0!X9^XXX  __  Rule33(c)                         ]HillCases $            $     X      C.A.      $      SimmonsCases ` 0!XyXXX  _ XXXXyXXStatev.Fields,    2000MT328,___State_Rptr_.___,15P.3d400 #z P##XyX zo# H 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Morigeau_,    2000MT177N(UNPUBLISHED) #u%P##X9^Xuo#zMorigeauCases 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%Xj468101(3)(b)#z$ %^J##X5X z$i#| 46-8-101(3)(b)MCATurner      z 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Schwein_,    2000MT371,57State_Rptr_.1587,16P.3d373 #u%P##X9^Xuo#SchweinCasesCases " 0!X\XXX  _%XjXXX\%>X%XjStatev.Hermes,    273Mont.446,904P.2d587(1995)#Z4%>J##X\XZ4i#HermesCases " 0!X\XXX  _%XjXXX\%>X%XjStatev.Allies,    186Mont.99,606P.2d1043(1979)#Z4%>J##X\XZ4i#AlliesCases G 0!XXXX  _X*XXXXX*Statev._Clausell_,    2001MT62,305Mont.1,22P.3d1111# J##XX i#ClausellCases  0!X\XXX  _XjXXX\>XXjDoylev.Ohio,    426U.S.610(1976)#Z4>J##X\XZ4i#Doyle Cases S 0!XXXX  _ %X*XXX%X%X*Statev._Worrall_,    2001MT57,304Mont.341,22P.3d182 # %P##XX o#WorrallCases S 0!XXXX  _ %X*XXX%X%X*Statev._Reesman_,    2000MT243,301Mont.408,10P.3d83 # %P##XX o#ReesmanCases U 0!X\XXX  _ %XjXXX\%>X%XjStatev._Herbenson_,    2001MT75,305Mont.68,22P.3d1128 #Z4%>P##X\XZ4o#HerbensonCases R 0!X\XXX  _ %XjXXX\%>X%XjStatev._Hatler_,    2001MT38,304Mont.211,19P.3d822 #Z4%>P##X\XZ4o#HatlerCases T 0!X\XXX  _ %XjXXX\%>X%XjStatev._Farabee_,    2000MT265,302Mont.29,22P.3d175 #Z4%>P##X\XZ4o#FarabeeCases Z 0!X\XXX  _ %XjXXX\%>X%XjStatev.Carlson,    2000MT320,57State_Rptr_.1348,15P.3d893 #Z4%>P##X\XZ4o#CarlsonCases 3 0!X\XXX  _ %XjXXX\%>X%XjStatev.Roper,    2001MT96,305Mont.212,___P.3d___ #Z4%>P##X\XZ4o#RoperCases 0!X\XXX  _%XjXXX\%>X%Xj46231011(6)#Z4%>J##X\XZ4i# 46-23-1011(6)MCAMCA W 0!XXXX  _ %X*XXX%X%X*Statev._Therriault_,    2000MT286,302Mont.189,14P.3d444 # %P##XX o#TherriaultCases \ 0!X9^XXX  _ XXXX9^XXStatev.Gustafson,    2000MT364,57State_Rptr_.1554,15P.3d944 #uP##X9^Xuo# y 0!X:XXX  _ %X*XXX:%X%X*Statev._Elison_,    2000MT288,57State_Rptr_.1206,14P.3d456 #:| %P##X:X :|o#ElisonCases Z 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev.Marker,    2000MT303,57State_Rptr_.1282,15P.3d373 #u%P##X9^Xuo#Hill  0!XXXX  _%XXXX%X%XStatev.Moore,    268Mont.20,885P.2d477(1994),    overruledonothergrounds,Statev._Gollehon_, 0   274Mont.112,906P.2d697(1995)# %M##XX l#MooreCases 3 0!X:XXX  _ %X*XXX:%X%X*Statev.Munoz,    2001MT85,305Mont.139,___P.3d___ #:| %P##X:X :|o#MunozCases M 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Rardon_,    1999MT220,296Mont.19,986P.2d424#ZS %M##X9^X ZSl#RardonCases H 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Persak_,    256Mont.404,847P.2d280(1993)#ZS %M##X9^X ZSl#( $PersakCases R 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Golder_,    2000MT239,301Mont.368,9P.3d635 #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#GolderCases 1 0!X:XXX  _ %X*XXX:%X%X*Statev.Baker,    2000MT235,301Mont.323,8P.3d817 #:| %P##X:X :|o#BakerCases 1 0!X:XXX  _ %X*XXX:%X%X*Statev.Duffy,    2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453 #:| %P##X:X :|o#DuffyCases 5 0!X:XXX  _ %X*XXX:%X%X*Statev.Gallagher,    2001MT39,304Mont.215,19P.3d817 #:| %P##X:X :|o#GallagherCases 1 0!X:XXX  _ %X*XXX:%X%X*Statev.Swan,    2000MT246,301Mont.439,10P.3d102 #:| %P##X:X :|o#SwanCases ; 0!X:XXX  _ %X*XXX:%X%X*Statev.Wright(Byron),    2000MT322,302Mont.527,17P.3d982 #:| %P##X:X :|o#Wright (Byron)CasesMoore J 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Gollehon_,    274Mont.112,906P.2d697(1995)#u%M##X9^Xul#GollehonCases ( 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%XStatev.Castle,    285Mont.363,948P.2d688(1997)#ZS %M##X9^X ZSl#GustafsonCases 2 0!XjXXX  _ %XXXXj%X%XStatev.Brady,    2000MT282,302Mont.174,13P.3d941 #r %P##XjX ro#BradyCases ( 0!XjXXX  _%XXXXj%X%XStatev.Partin,    297Mont.12,951P.2d1002(1997)#r %M##XjX rl#PartinCases | 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Highpine_,    2000MT368,57State_Rptr_.1573,15P.3d938 #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#HighpineCases K 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%XStatev._LaMere_,    2000MT45,298Mont.358,2P.3d204#ZS %M##X9^X ZSl#LaMereCases _ 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev.Enright/Link,    2000MT372,57State_Rptr_.1590,16P.3d366 #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#Enright/Link Cases Q 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._LaDue_,    2001MT47,304Mont.288,20P.3d775 #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#LaDueCasesGustafson U 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XMatterof_J.M._Jr.,    2001MT51,304Mont.303,21P.3d618 #u%P##X9^Xuo#J.M. Jr.,CasesHermesAllies _ 0!XXXX  _ %XXXX%X%XStatev.Scarborough,    2000MT301,57State_Rptr_.1268,14P.3d1202 # %P##XX o#ScarboroughCases u 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStateexrel._Mazurek_Ԁv.DistrictCourt(Ingraham),    2000MT266,302Mont.39,22P.3d166 #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#(Ingraham),Cases 0!XjXXX  _%XXXXj%X%X4616701#r %J##XjX ri# 46-16-701MCA C 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%XHarrison_v._ԀUnitedStates,    392U.S.219(1968)#ZS %M##X9^X ZSl#Harrison Cases 2 0!XjXXX  _ %XXXXj%X%XStatev.Hart,    2000MT332,___Mont.___,15P.3d917 #r %P##XjX ro#HartCasesScarborough x 0!XXXX  _ %XXXX%X%XStatev._Gowan_,    2000MT277,57State_Rptr_.1155,13P.3d376 # %P##XX o#GowanCases 0!XjXXX  _%XXXXj%X%XMont.R.Evid.404(a)(1)#r %J##XjX ri#Mont. R. Evid. 404(a)(1)Evid.Evid. 4 0!XjXXX  _ %XXXXj%X%XStatev.Whipple,    2001MT16,304Mont.118,19P.3d228 #r %P##XjX ro#WhippleCases 0!XjXXX  _%XXXXj%X%X455502#r %J##XjX ri# 45-5-502MCA J 0!XXXX  _%XXXX%X%XStatev._Hensley_,    250Mont.478,821P.2d1029(1991)# %M##XX l#HensleyCases 0!XjXXX  _%XXXXj%X%XArticleII,section24#r %J##XjX ri#Article II, section 24Mont. Const.Mont. Const. 8 0!XjXXX  _%XXXXj%X%X_Ake_Ԁv.Oklahoma,    407U.S.68(1985)#r %M##XjX rl#Ake Cases 0!XjXXX  _%XXXXj%X%X4614202and205#r %J##XjX ri# 46-14-202 and -205MCA & 0!XjXXX  _%XXXXj%X%XWilliamsv.Collins,    989F.2d841(5thCir.1993)#r %M##XjX rl#Williams Cases ' 0!XjXXX  _%XXXXj%X%XStatev.Fish,    190Mont.461,621P.2d1072(1980)#r %M##XjX rl#FishCases 0!XjXXX  _%XXXXj%X%XMont.R.Evid.401#r %J##XjX ri#Mont. R. Evid. 401Evid.DuffyCastleCases 2 0!XBXXX  _ %XjXXXB%>X%XjStatev.Jenkins,    2001MT79,305Mont.95,23P.3d201 # %>P##XBX  o#JenkinsCases  0!XBXXX  _%XjXXXB%>X%XjUnitedStatesv.Owens,    484U.S.554(1988)# %>M##XBX  l#OwensCases , 0!XBXXX  _%XjXXXB%>X%XjStatev.Maier,    1999MT51,293Mont.403,977P.2d298# %>M##XBX  l#MaierCasesWhipple 45-5-502 + 0!XBXXX  _%XjXXXB%>X%XjStatev.Alexander,    265Mont.192,875P.2d345(1994)# %>M##XBX  l#AlexanderCases - 0!XBXXX  _%XjXXXB%>X%XjStatev.Washington,    506S.E.2d283(N.C.Ct.App.1998)# %>M##XBX  l#WashingtonCases Z 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev.Stewart,    2000MT379,57State_Rptr_.1615,16P.3d391 #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#StewartCases 0!XBXXX  _%XjXXXB%>X%Xj459104and106# %>J##XBX  i# 45-9-104 and -106MCA 0!XBXXX  _%XjXXXB%>X%Xj4615322(1)(d)# %>J##XBX  i# 46-15-322(1)(d)MCAClausell T 0!X9^XXX  _ XXXX9^XXStatev._Zeltner_,    2000MT319,302Mont.504,15P.3d384 #ZS P##X9^X ZSo#ZeltnerCases 2 0!XBXXX  _ %XjXXXB%>X%XjStatev.Lopez,    2001MT97,305Mont.218,___P.3d___ # %>P##XBX  o#LopezCases N 0!XBXXX  _ %XjXXXB%>X%XjStatev.Martin(a/k/aJamesGeneTrujillo),    2001MT83,305Mont.123,23P.3d216 # %>P##XBX  o# Martin Cases 0!XBXXX  _%XjXXXB%>X%Xj452103(3)# %>J##XBX  i#  45-2-103(3)MCA 0!XBXXX  _%XjXXXB%>X%Xj452101(34)and(64)# %>J##XBX  i# 45-2-101(34) and (64)MCAMartin  * 0!XBXXX  _%XjXXXB%>X%XjStatev.Thornton,    218Mont.317,708P.2d273(1985)# %>M##XBX  l#ThorntonCases 1 0!XBXXX  _ %XjXXXB%>X%XjStatev.Davis,    2000MT199,300Mont.450,5P.3d547 # %>P##XBX  o#DavisCases R 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%XjStatev.Hall,    1999MT297,56State_Rptr_.1190,991P.2d929#z$ %^M##X5X z$l#HallCases & 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%XHansv.State,    283Mont.379,942P.2d674(1997)#ZS %M##X9^X ZSl# Hans Cases T 0!X9^XXX  _ XXXX9^XXStatev._Billedeaux_,    2001MT9,304Mont.89,18P.3d990 #uP##X9^Xuo#BilledeauxCases x 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Fuqua_,    2000MT273,57State_Rptr_.1141,13P.3d34 #u%P##X9^Xuo#FuquaCasesMarkerCases 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%X452101(76)(a)#ZS %J##X9^X ZSi# 45-2-101(76)(a)MCABilledeaux O 0!X9^XXX  _ XXXX9^XXStatev._Haser_,    2001MT6,304Mont.63,20P.3d100 #ZS P##X9^X ZSo#"HaserCases 0!X9^XXX  _XXXX9^XX455501(1)#ZS J##X9^X ZSi#$ 45-5-501(1)MCA 0!X9^XXX  _XXXX9^XX455501(1)(b)(ii)#ZS J##X9^X ZSi#& 45-5-501(1)(b)(ii)MCA { 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Flatley_,    2000MT295,57State_Rptr_.1249,14P.3d1195 #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#(FlatleyCasesFlatleyBradyBaker . 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev.Fey,    2000MT211,301Mont.28,7P.3d358 #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#-FeyCases 2 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev.Taylor,    2000MT202,300Mont.499,5P.3d1019 #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#/TaylorCasesDavis ; 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev.Johnson(Aaron),    2000MT180,300Mont.367,4P.3d654 #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#2Johnson (Aaron)Cases  0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStateexrel._Mazurek_Ԁv.DistrictCourt(Ingraham),    2000MT266,57State_Rptr_.1111,___P.3d___ #ZS %P##X9^X ZSo#4Ingraham, Cases 46-16-701 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%XFifthAmendment#ZS %J##X9^X ZSi#7Fifth AmendmentUS ConUS ConHarrison  ` 0!X9^XXX  _ XXXX9^XXStatev.Smith(Paul_Emond_),    2001MT111,___Mont.___,___P.3d___ #uP##X9^Xuo#Enright/Link Haser           45-5-501(1) 45-5-501(1)(b)(ii)Zeltner ` 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XCityofMissoulav._Fergunson_,    2001MT69,305Mont.36,22P.3d198 #u%P##X9^Xuo#CFergunsonCases 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%XjMont.R.Evid.606(b)#z$ %^J##X5X z$i#EMont. R. Evid. 606(b)Evid.FuquaTaylorHall 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%Xj46-1-202(8)#z$ %^J##X5X z$i#J 46-1-202(8)MCA 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%Xj452210(4)#z$ %^J##X5X z$i#L 45-2-210(4)MCADoyle Stewart 45-9-104 and -106 @ 0!X5XXX  _ %XjXXX5%^X%XjStatev.Johnson(Elizabeth),    2000MT290,302Mont.265,14P.3d480 #z$ %^P##X5X z$o#$@JD:\IMAGES\BORDERS\BASIC\BORBS481.WMFD:\IMAGES\BORDERS\BASIC\BORBS481.WMF4kk4XϤΤ$Ϥ d4XϤ DD)̎ TϤ dHart ( 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%XjStatev.Hubbel,    286Mont.200,951P.2d971(1997)#z$ %^J##X5X z$i# 46-15-322(1)(d) $       C:\MYDOCU~1\MYPICT~1\STATES~1.GIFSchwein 2 0!X5XXX  _ %XjXXX5%^X%XjStatev.Hubbel,    2001MT31,304Mont.184,20P.3d111 #z$ %^P##X5X z$o#ZHubbelCases $ 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%XjStatev.Lane,    288Mont,286,957P.2d9(1998)#z$ %^M##X5X z$l#\LaneCasesTHubbel 1997CasesQJohnson (ElizCases i 0!XXXX  _ XXXXXXMatterofB.F.,R.F.andM.S.Jr.,    2000MT231,57State_Rptr_.954,8P.3d790 # P##XX o#`B.F., R.F. and M.S. Jr.Cases Y 0!XGXXX  _ %XJXXXG%>X%XJStatev._Neiderklopfer_,    2000MT187,300Mont.397,6P.3d448 #:X %>P##XGX :Xo# 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%Xj468113#z$ %^J##X5X z$i#c 46-8-113MCA 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%Xj468113(3)#z$ %^J##X5X z$i#e 46-8-113(3)MCA V 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Giddings_,    2001MT76,___Mont.___,___P.3d___ #u%P##X9^Xuo#;Smith (Paul CasesHubbelbNeiderklopferCases 5 0!X5XXX  _ %XjXXX5%^X%XjStatev.Setters,    2001MT101,305Mont.253,___P.3d___ #z$ %^P##X5X z$o#kSettersCases + 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%XjStatev.Blanchard,    270Mont.11,889P.2d1180(1995)#z$ %^M##X5X z$l#mBlanchardCases < 0!XGXXX  _%XJXXXG%>X%XJ#:X %>J#> :X#:X >̫#> :X #:X ># :X#:X 5#%> :XStatev.Horton,    2001MT100,305Mont.242,___P.3d___ #:X %>w##XGX :Xi#oHortonCases 6 0!X5XXX  _ %XjXXX5%^X%XjStatev.Sprinkle,    2000MT188,304Mont.134,18P.3d1014 #z$ %^P##X5X z$o#qSprinkleCases 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%Xj4618223#z$ %^J##X5X z$i#s 46-18-223MCA 0!X5XXX  _%XjXXX5%^X%Xj45-5-503(3)(a)and507(4)#z$ %^J##X5X z$i#u 45-5-503(3)(a) and -507(4)MCA w 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XInre_T.Z._Ԁand_J.Z._,    2000MT205,300Mont.522,6P.3d960 #u%P##X9^Xuo#SettersBlanchardHorton y 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._LaTray_,    2000MT262,57State_Rptr_.1098,11P.3d116 #u%P##X9^Xuo#{LaTrayCases \ 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev.Pritchett,    2000MT261,57State_Rptr_.1093,11P.3d539 #u%P##X9^Xuo#}PritchettCasesgGiddingsCasesHubbel 1997 46-8-113 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X4618222#z %J##XyX zi# 46-18-222MCAJohnson (Eliz { 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%XStatev._Guillaume_,    1999MT29,56State_Rptr_.117,975P.2d312#z %M##XyX zl#GuillaumeCases 3 0!XyXXX  _ %XXXXy%X%XStatev.St.John,    2001MT1,304Mont.47,15P.3d970 #z %P##XyX zo#St. John,Cases 2 0!XGXXX  _ %XJXXXG%>X%XJDawsonv.State,    2000MT219,301Mont.135,10P.3d49 #:X %>P##XGX :Xo#Lane h 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XKillsOnTopv.State(Vernon),    2000MT340,___State_Rptr_.___,15P.3d422 #u%P##X9^Xuo#Kills On Top Cases  0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%XPaynev.Tennessee,    501U.S.808(1991)#z %M##XyX zl#Payne Cases  0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%XBoothv.Maryland,    482U.S.496(1987)#z %M##XyX zl#Booth CasesPayne Smith (Paul  P 0!X9^XXX  _XXXX9^XXStatev._Ommundson_,    1999MT16,293Mont.133,974P.2d620#uM##X9^Xul#OmmundsonCasesKills On Top <09Z .Courier New Regular 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X46-231012(4)#z %J##XyX zi# 46-23-1012(4)MCA 0 0!XXXX  _ %XXXX%X%XMatterofA.M.,    2001MT60,304Mont.379,22P.3d185 # %P##XX o#A.M.CasesLaDue 8 0!XyXXX  _ %XXXXy%X%XStatev.Grace,    2001MT22 , 304Mont.144,18P.3d1008 #z %P##XyX zo#GraceCasesArticle II, section 24St. John,wT.Z. and J.Z.Cases 3 0!XyXXX  _ %XXXXy%X%XStatev.Tucker,    2000MT255,301Mont.466,10P.3d832 #z %P##XyX zo#TuckerCases 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X4618223(3)#z %J##XyX zi# 46-18-223(3)MCA  0!X9^XXX  _ XXXX9^XXState_v._ԀWells#uP##wu,#u#w#%uԀ    2001MT55,304Mont.329,21P.3d610 #u%%##X9^Xuo#WellsCasesGuillaume 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X46-21-102(1)#z %J##XyX zi# 46-21-102(1)MCA 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X46-21-102#z %J##XyX zi# 46-21-102MCA 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X46-21-105(2)#z %J##XyX zi# 46-21-105(2)MCA 3 0!XyXXX  _ %XXXXy%X%XStatev.Charlo,    2000MT192,300Mont.435,4P.3d1201 #z %P##XyX zo#CharloCases W 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%X_Swearingen_Ԁv.State,    2001MT10,304Mont.97,18P.3d998 #u%P##X9^Xuo#Swearingen Cases 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X4621201(2)#z %J##XyX zi# 46-21-201(2)MCA x 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Cady_,    2000MT353,___State_Rptr_.___,15P.3d479 #u%P##X9^Xuo#CadyCases     (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular Y 0!XyXXX  _ %XXXXy%X%XStatev.Turner,    2000MT270,57State_Rptr_.1127,12P.3d934 #z %P##XyX zo#TurnerCasesAke  e 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X_Iaea_Ԁv._Sunn_,    800F.2d861(9thCir.1986)#z %M##XyX zl#Iaea CasesyFieldsCases Y 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev.Field,    2000MT268,57State_Rptr_.1123,11P.3d1203 #u%P##X9^Xuo#Dawson Cases S 0!XGXXX  _ %XJXXXG%>X%XJStatev._Dyfort_,    2000MT338,___Mont.___,15P.3d464 #:X %>P##XGX :Xo#DyfortCases * 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%XHagenv.State,    1999MT8,293Mont.60,973P.2d233#z %M##XyX zl#Hagen Cases ? 0!XyXXX  _ %XXXXy%X%XStatev.RonaldAllenSmith,    2000MT327,___Mont.___,15P.3d395 #z %P##XyX zo#Ronald Allen SmithCases y 0!XyXXX  _ %XXXXy%X%X_Eisenman_Ԁv.State,    2000MT170,57State_Rptr_.704,5P.3d542 #z %P##XyX zo#Eisenman Cases B 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X_MacPheat_Ԁv.Mahoney,    2000MT62,997P.2d753#z %M##XyX zl#MacPheat Cases  0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X_Teague_Ԁv.Lane,489U.S.288(1989)#z %M##XyX zl#Teague CasesGrace 2 0!XyXXX  _ XXXXyXXStatev.Allen,    2001MT17,304Mont.129,18P.3d1006 #z P##XyX zo#AllenCasesMarker 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X4616702(1997)#z %J##XyX zi# 46-16-702(1997)MCA - 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%XStatev.Brummer,    998MT11,287Mont.168,953P.2d250#z %M##XyX zl#BrummerCases 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X4616702#z %J##XyX zi# 46-16-702MCAJ.M. Jr., Z 0!XXXX  _ %XXXX%X%XMatterofC.B.and_J.B._,    2001MT42,304Mont.252,20P.3d117 # %P##XX o#C.B. and J.B.CasesAlexanderWashingtonGiddings 46-23-1012(4) z 0!XGXXX  _ %XJXXXG%>X%XJStatev._Goebel_,    2001MT73,___State_Rptr_.___,___P.3d___ #:X %>P##XGX :Xo#GoebelCases F 0!X9^XXX  _ XXXX9^XXStatev._Bjarko_,    2000MT387N(UNPUBLISHED) #uP##X9^Xuo#BjarkoCases $      A.M.FieldsFieldCases 0!XyXXX  _%XXXXy%X%X4618801#z %J##XyX zi# 46-18-801MCA     Eisenman MacPheat Teague LopezLaMere 0!XGXXX  _%XJXXXG%>X%XJ413412(6)(c)(v)#:X %>J##XGX :Xi# } 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XInre_J.L._ԀandD.L.,    2000MT289,57State_Rptr_.1219,14P.3d473 #u%P##X9^Xuo#J.L. and D.L.Cases  0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XIntheMatterof_C.D.S._,_S.E.S._,and_T.M.S._,    2000MT313,57State_Rptr_.1327,14P.3d1248 #u%P##X9^Xuo#C.D.S., S.E.S., and T.M.S.Cases I 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%XInre_E.W._,    1998MT135,289Mont.190,959P.2d951#u%M##X9^Xul#E.W.Cases 1 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XMatterofC.A.,    2000MT227,301Mont.233,8P.3d116 #u%P##X9^Xuo#C.A.Cases X 0!X9^XXX  _ XXXX9^XXInreF.M.andS.M.,    2001MT93,___State_Rptr_.___,___P.3d___ #uM##X9^Xul#F.M. and S.M.Cases 0!X9^XXX  _XXXX9^XX413609(1)(f)#uJ##X9^Xui# 41-3-609(1)(f)MCA u 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XInre_J.W._Ԁ&_K.D._,    2001MT86,305Mont.149,___P.3d___ #u%P##X9^Xuo#J.W. & K.D.Cases v 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XInre_M.W._Ԁand_C.S._,    2001MT78,305Mont.80,___P.3d___ #u%P##X9^Xuo#M.W. and C.S.Cases 0!XGXXX  _%XJXXXG%>X%XJ413609(e)#:X %>J##XGX :Xi# 41-3-609(e)MCAC.B. and J.B. ~ 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XInreC.F.,_H.F._,and_J.F._,    2001MT19,304Mont.134,18P.3d1014 #u%P##X9^Xuo#C.F., H.F., and J.F.Cases - 0!XGXXX  _ %XJXXXG%>X%XJInreS.M.,    2001MT11,304Mont.102,19P.3d213 #:X %>P##XGX :Xo#S.M.CasesC.D.S., S.E.S., and T.M.S.E.W. ] 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XInreA.W.,etal.,    2000MT311,57State_Rptr_.1317,14P.3d1252 #u%P##X9^Xuo#A.W.CasesWPC```` $#%&ecr@=Ya]}} T c \MAMKeXVrRQbvu s krUgevtlkutmlb$#h0/l<;tNM|BAhUT\[sld|\SF \N**_**R77aIIpaa__wee~}}uu}nns { s l d SfY ]p { t l e \ | l eL S \ufsbklfbfa`fn ebvzv~¾~~~zzztttlllddd\\\TTTLLLCCC777,,,C} չhփշ C*]]77@@^6C8hž)ոdB?"JW2}QxQRS2SRR((o}}WYZ$*8i ո'a?YXoRxwnuu||uuwvwxQQRR|HI]+-Ŵչ]Hr(RQxnvNwmvQ|RQvuQOxvOQRRVK%׷*Źd@GxQONwwOQRTrqQG?"vo@%4Oq\ZIHVU/uv NOORYBj,ŹBJoROwvvwVY@a e2rdZQuR@ZRvqj_[,anNuv MNwQRrKC'?Źc=rRQOvOwwQZ_^JJSKXQMQIIQ|o8XSGFOuvuuvuuutPMOTG> Ź41RxvMMuv]*S4[SFXRI[GHH^IOv2RR2WoQOvN^]R:{3؅؃ق bb2;;1U;}Wd]RMK sPyO]$a1uMFլ@JU1U2Tv|(5كي)bb(;;p!RvtzyyNI֋;BS{um{vqWSI#VNm0Wق݂݂351;G'_Su|J\lkkztzyOC+rOuu{QIBU"SJJQl:V߂4b!TsOHX0n1T9kzztzzNG;?R{vwEum|vN)^1ox{mo9bbbװWEzOLVwzt{zyyQ6WjqwnUWqO|{{OG!Rluu($؂&bղ2;yn@]VvyykzyyMG|ZQXSOulO=WvttO31zux/{ltPkzzzx)=rvxK8Y1\Imv<0s[OtMVөbb؂ق!Ezktllzzktyyzus.B]R{|3SRdUQG314qm9Q_bق܂#2p;t{lkzzyPNvvM{yN*>fFNOIWr*Vwvp5SmQ4֟ق11;lkzzNH)C#?rMyuH%#((Xrnq8?Qt{||uQx|{0Bك؉_bbbbbb2swZ&JpRXFNII/% YQ{uu|{u9uuuT+փ ؇abbVp;rrw{EVj"S6+Gm] !x{tt{uuluNF؂!bBXmz|s|U4X2Jrs4ւ Uwuu{|{lu{|O4bbb<;{EO:p{V܂.aR{QrWomuu{uux$bbSbbUs|lkyyzzztp|BRvp^_Xxuuuttu:(b Uzl{lzzzpc|]QNL GOupuuNEbb Wlzlyz;zsFTC?QN>2|OOxMFDZbX;ktt{szzsssx>-INO>+aYHY4uNHWb4Ez{ zznox"/GOQ6h-ֹRtOIמڅۂ(?C[SvkOZ׃؂%ۂ-XNP/߄ۂCbbbq\JQ:nnQH'?0kv#tvGB!4YxvwZNtO6bمb9%:Pp8%unDaSF,UwwS7^wtO]b؃&bbb5[TC=0ks=j;NFqN:5RR?XA^ u/Iׯ݂ل$bbbւ܂,X:x#6QkytsT@D:NX҂#JOM)eJ?8rMNp؂քbڂ0bVmzwLXRts<>NN"ł4ONI׸'8)IHX2vt/C؂ق׃bY_1|4FUXeptwBAxMs'IrG:;uUc\Vuox{mn{mTcutnDق-(lXd^[XoRRO:9yM3؃.Xww{n2}ww@KNttN=ւ׆ !܂?O;|WXVY@6>ZYpXGv?Ճ@Q{UU$UrBQt9MGٵ؄قۃك܃ւ ؃(rm|ETR23+HQu}',ENQRuuQ#ׄ؄bbۄ@*<|{{xoW3]._UuFބfVwwqqpCISq@"OuOIׄ3bۂ2JQlmV?aڷ%[VEMY؄AMp83QQG'A$ qvm< ׂ ؃YbTMuxB.d4r<|kywB%uwC\SW7ַKHqvlO?քڃYbbbIOl|G*-%!S1pstpVvNLѸBFQRRVE:Ej؂ قZ8#}ROHa !uE8ׂڂcF{EWcbbbb@oqxn}KOt/J@nx*<-Vw{QX=>=H(xmu{|v|//#bb)b%oExJVR?G6rNX=HnxH  {{OORRQ|m|nT1Sx{NEbbbbbrxR4aoOr3}{Q(Lb؄J?(x|{oXWo)ַaa@VqMlOVc#g]2uQ#VQxG8HNvohm$S|/qJUX'6,!S74STrUQvQTLÿƇ=3)6*_%*%6)>LHrEOQOOwvvNwu{{w<)ַ4Qw}Ah%WSqwT}42Wqw vvvvwvNwOOQQQxNNv!wvvwvvQY-%{QV6!RMuQV4RqwwwTwvvwwwwvv{|tNFKuuMRXh"2o=2SUWxUqwwv wxwvv v uvxuxo U|QF*a$Xxwv.wwwvwKVxwwwwwwQU'Fc3Sw{xQLYoqwwTxOrj@Rwww JC֟ @USvQQx wvwwNwVS!wwwwzuQUAjՠ 5SRnv wwRSSq#YR$wvvwwvvuvRY,ط!SQuwwwwG^_\UJUYVwvuvxG^գ^XRxwxF*~DJX?~~YQvwqqORV@BXxvwwwQs|}31Rppxwvwuxr? i,݂XQwvwvwvwOQVIQwwwwvOW`cة=3RvwwwxX%XJInreInquiryintoA.W.,    1999MT42,293Mont.358,975P.2d1250#:X %>M##XGX :Xl#      $                     Inquiry into A.W.Cases      0!XGXXX  _%XJXXXG%>X%XJMont.R.App.P.33(c)#:X %>J##XGX :Xi#Mont. R. App. P. 33(c) Mont. R. App. P.Mont. R. App. P. 1 0!XGXXX  _ XJXXXG>XXJInreMcKenzie,    2001MT25,304Mont.153,19P.3d221 #:X >P##XGX :Xo# McKenzieCasesSimmons w 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Lesmeister_,    2000MT318,___State_Rptr_.___,15P.3d392 #u%M##X9^Xul##LesmeisterCases 0!XGXXX  _%XJXXXG%>X%XJ415208#:X %>J##XGX :Xi#% 41-5-208MCA 0!XGXXX  _%XJXXXG%>X%XJ4618201(3)(d)(i)]#:X %>J##XGX :Xi#' 46-18-201(3)(d)(i)]MCA P 0!XGXXX  _ :X XXG%> :XStatev._Wooster_Ԁ(II),    2001MT4,304Mont.56,16P.3d409 #:X %>l##XGX :XM#)Wooster (II)Cases e 0!XGXXX  _ %XJXXXG%>X%XJInreMentalHealthofS.C.,    2000MT370,57State_Rptr_.1584,15P.3d861 #:X %>P##XGX :Xo#+Mental Health of S.C.Cases $       45-5-503(3)(a) and -507(4)Roper 46-23-1011(6)FarabeeReesmanJenkinsOwensMaier Q 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Aliff_,    2001MT52,304Mont.310,21P.3d624 #u%P##X9^Xuo#6AliffCasesGallagher 0!XGXXX  _%XJXXXG%>X%XJ4616607(3)#:X %>J##XGX :Xi#9 46-16-607(3)MCA  0!XGXXX  _%XJXXXG%>X%XJStatev.Robbins,    971P.2d359(1998)#:X %>M##XGX :Xl#;RobbinsCasesRobbinsHighpineHagen    Iaea Swan X 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev.Keyes,    2000MT337,___State_Rptr_.___,15P.3d443 #u%P##X9^Xuo#DKeyesCasesWright (Byron)      U 0!X9^XXX  _ %XXXX9^%X%XStatev._Ellenburg_,    2000MT232,301Mont.289,8P.3d801 #u%M##X9^Xul#HEllenburgCasesJohnson (Aaron)ElisonTherriaultEllenburg A 0!X9^XXX  _%XXXX9^%X%XCaliforniav._Trombetta_,    467U.S.479(1984)#u%J##X9^Xui#NTrombettaCases          H $            $            *  X t\R3' White\     t    \R3' White\тLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(T$JOSEPHP.MAZUREKAttorneyGeneralAssistantAttorneyGeneralStateofMontana215NorthSandersP.O.Box201401Helena,MT596201401(406)4442026COUNSELFOR d( $ Figure  1  'dxdLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5b^`a I&mage <=8C HKKKK( $ d ^y  <<= 8C3+0 d d d3+0 d d diiii'dxd&p d Pdkkkk'dxd&p Pd dfgfg'dxdnnnn'dxd d_____'dxd_'dxdq@JD:\IMAGES\BORDERS\BASIC\BORBS481.WMFD:\IMAGES\BORDERS\BASIC\BORBS481.WMF4kk4XϤΤ$Ϥ d4XϤ DD)̎ TϤ d7p0 AZ.Arial Black Regularv@DC:\MYDOCU~1\MYPICT~1\STATES~1.GIFC:\My Documents\My Pictures\State Seal 4.gifhHhH? ,E,E);o„ F 0!X[XXX  _XjXXX[ *,*-'8~dd8~XXj  TRX3' WhiteX3' Letter3' White3'TI.  INVESTIGATIVEPROCEDURES/TECHNIQUES       A.0 ` InterviewsbyLawEnforcement 0` (#` (#  %~~ _ p _Statev.Hill(_Kippy_ԀJoe),2000MT308,302Mont.415,14P.3d1237(Ravalli).  ` Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. _Hill_Ԁclaimedthathisvideotapedstatementwas ( x involuntary,arguingthattheMirandawarningswereinadequatebecausethe @  demeanoroftheofficerswasmisleading,therewasinsufficientdiscussionofhisconstitutionalrights,theofficersusedcoercivetactics,hisrepeatedattemptstoendtheinterviewwereignored,andhelackedthementalcapacitytoknowinglywaivehisrights.TheCourtcited  State_v._ԀHermes,273Mont.446,904P.2d587   (1995),whichstatedseveralfactorstobeconsideredwhendeterminingthevoluntarinessofaconfessionunderthetotalityofthecircumstances.Thosefactorswere(1)thedefendantsageandlevelofeducation;(2)theinterrogationtechnique;(3)theadvisementofMirandarights;(4)thedefendantsprior P experiencewiththepolice;and(5)thedefendantsownbackgroundandexperience.Hillreliedon  State_v._ԀAllies,186Mont.99,606P.2d1043(1979), 0 tosupporthisclaimthatthepoliceusedcoercivetactics.TheCourtnotedthatHillhadslightlybelowaverageintelligence,buttherecordshowedhewascapableofunderstanding.TheCourtdistinguishedAlliesfromthiscase,notingthatHill x knewfromthebeginningthathewasasuspect;_he_Ԁwasinterviewedthedaythevictimsbodywasdiscovered;_he_Ԁlaterchangedhisstatementtodeflectsuspicionwhenhereturnedtothestationafewdayslatertohavehairsamplestaken;_he_receivedadequateMirandawarningsjustbeforetheinterview;_he_Ԁwasfully ( coherentduringtheinterview;_he_Ԁwasnotmisledabouttheevidenceagainsthim;_and_,althoughtheofficersappealedtohismorality,theydidnotpromiseorthreatenanyparticulartreatment.Hilldidnotrequestanattorney,butaskedtoseehiswifeandchildren,whichdidnot,inthecontextofthisinterview,appeartobeanattempttoseeklegaladvice.Hedidnotspecificallyrequestthattheinterviewterminate,andhewasbroughtwaterwhenherequestedit.Hillalsohad_had_Ԁsomeexposuretothepolicefromearliermisdemeanors.  %   #~%~=# \*   B. ` Miranda/Interrogation    _  _Statev._Clausell_,2001MT62,305Mont.1,22P.3d1111(Yellowstone). 0 Affirmed;Nelson,J. _Clausell_Ԁattrialsoughttodrawattentiontohiscooperation H withthepoliceafterhewasarrestedandMirandized.Onappeal,heclaimedthattheprosecutor'scommentsandtheelicitedtestimonyregardinghispostMirandacommentsviolatedhisrighttodueprocessandhisprivilegeagainstselfincriminationunder  Doyle_v._ԀOhio,426U.S.610(1976).  TheState,however,did X  not Ԁusesilencetoimpeach_Clausell_'strialtestimony.Therecorddoesnotshow_Clausell_Ԁinvokedtherighttosilenceorthatheremainedsilentatall.HeinfactgavemultiplepreMirandaandpostMirandastatements,allofwhichwere   _inconsistent_ԀandallofwhichtheStateproperlyattacked.      P  %~~c*e*k*   *II.0  SEARCHANDSEIZURE 6(#(#    A.0 ` SearchWarrants 0` (#` (#  _  _Statev._Worrall_,2001MT57,304Mont.341,22P.3d182(_Chouteau_).  ` Affirmed;Gray,C.J. Onremandfollowing_Worrall_sfirstappeal,thedistrict ( x courtaffirmeditspriordeterminationthatthesearchwarrantapplicationestablishedprobablecausetobelieve_Worrall_Ԁwasgrowingmarijuanaonhisproperty.Thestatementof_an_Ԁ11yearoldboywhosawthemarijuanaplantsandcouldidentifymarijuanadidnotneedtobecorroboratedandprovidedasubstantialbasisfortheprobablecausedetermination.#~%~#%~~    _  _Statev._Reesman_,2000MT243,301Mont.408,10P.3d83(Gallatin).   Reversedandremanded;Nelson,J. Officersobtainedawarranttosearcha 8  trailerinwhich_Reesman_Ԁoccupiedabedroombasedoninformationfromaconfidentialinformantwhostatedthatshepersonallyobservedmarijuanagrowinginabedroomclosetbelongingtooneofthetrailersotheroccupants.Thewarrantapplicationattemptedtocorroboratetheinformantstipwithinformationfromananonymouscitizen(whohadprovidedreliableinformationinthepast)thatthe_grow_Ԁoperationhadbeeninexistenceformorethanoneyear.Therewasnoinformationaboutwhetherthiswasbasedonpersonalobservationorunderwhat_circumstances_Ԁofficersreceivedthepriorreliableinformation.OfficersconfirmedthelocationofthetraileridentifiedbytheCI,butdidnothingmoretocorroboratetheinformationprovided.8Ҁ  TheSupremeCourtheldthatunderthesefacts,therewasinsufficient @ probablecausetojustifyissuanceofthewarrant.TheCourtmappedoutathreepronginquiryinplaceofthetraditionaltwoparttestfromIllinois_v._ԀGatesto  !p determinebasisofknowledgeandreliability.Theinquiryisasfollows:(1)Istheinformantanonymous?Ifso,independentcorroborationoftheinformationisrequired.(2)Ifnot,istheinformantsinformationbasedonpersonalobservation?Ifitisnot,independentcorroborationisrequired.(3)Iftheinformationwas %  gleanedfrompersonalobservationofanonanonymousinformant,istheinformantareliablesourceofinformation(i.e.,aswornstatementbylawenforcementthatthepersonhasprovidedreliableinformationinthepast,thepersonmakesanadmissionagainstinterest,orthepersonisaconcernedcitizen).Withrespecttothethirdinquiry,theCourtfocusesonthereliabilityofthe informant notthereliabilityof *H&# the information itself,whichisadeviationfromGates.Ifreliabilitycantbe ,`'$ shownbythesemethods,independentcorroborationisrequired. (-x(%  *       8  Applyingthisanalysistothefactshere,theCourtfoundthefirsttworequirementssatisfiedwithrespecttotheCIsinformation.However,therewasnoshowingofherreliability.Theanonymoustipwasinsufficientbecausethattip,itself,requiredfurthercorroborationbeforeitcouldbeusedtocorroboratetheCIsinformation.Inotherwords,youcantuseanuncorroboratedtiptocorroborateanotheruncorroboratedtip.#~%~1# 8  0`      B. ` InvestigativeStops $X ` `  %~~ _  _Statev._Herbenson_,2001MT75,305Mont.68,22P.3d1128(Cascade).   Affirmed;Regnier,J. Officerspersonallyobserveddriverpullintothe   right-handemergencylane,_pass_Ԁtwovehiclesandturnrightatanintersection.Theofficersstoppedthevehicleanddeterminedthatthedriver(_Herbenson_)wasintoxicated._Herbenson_Ԁwaschargedwith4thorsubsequentDUI,andotherdriving 8  violations.Hemovedtosuppress,claimingtheofficerslackedparticularizedsuspicionthathewasengagedincriminalactivitynecessarytojustifythestop.Thedistrictcourtfoundthattheofficershadparticularizedsuspicionbasedontheinformantstipsandupontheofficersownobservationsthat_Herbenson_Ԁhadmadeanunsafetrafficmaneuver.TheSupremeCourtaffirmed.Thedistrictcourtcorrectlydeterminedthattheofficershadparticularizedsuspicionthat_Herbenson_hadcommittedatrafficviolationwhenhepassedtheothervehiclesontheright.TheCourtrejected_Herbenson_sassertionthathispassingontherightwasnotunsafebecausesuchamaneuvercouldhaveresultedinacollisionifoneofthosevehicleshadbeenturningrightattheintersection.#~%~$#%~~ _  _Statev._Hatler_,2001MT38,304Mont.211,19P.3d822(LewisandClark).  X Affirmed;Leaphart,J. UponlearningthatadriverhadanexpiredMontana  !p driverslicense,an_MHP_ԀofficereffectedatrafficstopanddeterminedthedriverwasDUI.Inamotiontosuppress,thedriverarguedthattheofficerlackedparticularizedsuspicionbecausehedidnotfirstruleoutthepossibilitythedrivermayhavepossessedavalidlicensefromanotherstate.Onappeal,theCourtheldtheofficerneednothaveinvestigatedfurther,sinceheisonlyrequiredtohaveparticularizedsuspicion,notproofbeyondareasonabledoubt,thatanoffensehasbeenorisbeingcommitted. #~%~%+#%~~ _  _  *H&# c* c  c   *Statev._Farabee_,2000MT265,302Mont.29,22P.3d175(LewisandClark.)  Affirmed;Regnier,J. Officerstoppeddefendantsvehiclebelievingthatitwas  missingaheadlight.Defendantarguedthatthestopwasunjustifiedbecauseitwasbroaddaylightandofficercouldnothavebeencertainabouttheheadlightsfunctioning.SupremeCourtrejectedthisargument,aswellasdefendantsclaimthatthestopwaspretextualbecauseparticularizedsuspiciondoesnotrequire certainty onthepartoftheofficer. @   _  _State_v._ԀCarlson,2000MT320,302Mont.508,15P.3d893(Yellowstone) p  (stateappeal).Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. TheStateappealedfromthedistrict   courtsordersuppressingevidenceseizedfollowingacaninesniffofCarlsonsvan.TheSupremeCourtdidnotreachtheissueofwhetherthecaninesniffwasasearch,findinginsteadthattheofficersdidnothaveparticularizedsuspiciontodetainthevaninordertoinvestigatethepossiblepresenceofillegaldrugsinthevan.Becausethevan_wasparked_Ԁunlawfullyonsomeoneelsesproperty,theofficershadsufficientparticularizedsuspiciontoinvestigatethetrespassbutcouldnotdetainthevananylongerthannecessarytoaccomplishthatpurpose.#~%~.#    C.0 ` ProbationarySearches 5`` (#` (# %~~    State_v._ԀRoper,2001MT96,305Mont.212,___P.3d___(SilverBow).  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Roper,whowasservingasuspendedsentencefora  drugoffense,wassubjecttoacourtorderedsearchclause,aswellasaconsensualsearchclause.Subsequently,RoperwasconditionallydischargedfromstatesupervisionpursuanttoMont.CodeAnn.  46231011(6),thepurposeofwhichwastotakeadvantageofmoreintensivefederalsupervision.However,followingtheconditionaldischarge,theDOCinformedRoperhewouldremainonprobationarystatusthroughSeptember2001,andwouldbesubjecttowarrantlesssearchesanddrugtesting.Thereafter,RopersstateprobationofficerobtainedinformationfromtwootherprobationersthatRoperwasusingandsellingdrugs.Thisinformationwasconfirmedbyotherlawenforcementagencies,andincludedindicationthatRoperwassellingdrugsoutofablackleatherpouch.WhentheprobationofficerandotherpoliceofficersobservedRoperoutsidehisworkplace,inwhatappearedtobeadrugtransaction,Ropersworkplacewassearched.Thesearchresultedinthediscoveryofablackleatherpouch,whichwasfoundinplainviewinRopersexclusiveworkarea.Thepouchcontainedmethamphetamine. (-x(%  e* * e   e     OnappealtheCourtheldthattheconditionaldischargeorderdidnotvoidtheprobationofficersauthoritybecauseRoperwasinformedbytheStatethatheremainedonprobationandsubjecttowarrantlesssearchesifreasonablecauseexisted.Here,theofficerhadreasonablecause.TheCourtalsorejectedRoperscontentionthattheprobationofficerssearchauthorityonlyextendedtoasearchofhisperson,residence,orautomobileandnottoRopersworkplace,notingthatinBostontheCourt upheldasearchofagarageaspartofalawfulresidence @  searcheventhoughthegaragewasseparatefromthepropertythattheresidencewaslocatedon.Therefore,theofficerhadthelawfulrighttosearchRopersworkareaandtoseizetheapparentlyincriminatingpouch,whichwasinplainviewinanareaoverwhichRoperhadexclusivecontrol.#~%~6#%~~ _  _Statev._Therriault_,2000MT286,302Mont.189,14P.3d444(Missoula).   Affirmed;Nelson,J. _Therriault_ԀwasplacedintheIntensiveSupervisionProgram 8  (ISP)afterpleadingguiltytomultiplefelonycounts,includingsexualintercoursewithoutconsentofafourteenyearoldgirl.Aportionof_Therriault_ssentencewassuspendeduponconditions,includingtherequirementthathe submithimself,hisvehicleandhisresidencetosearchatanytimebylawfulauthoritiesuponreasonablerequestofhisProbationOfficer.Theofficerentered_Therriault_sunoccupiedhomeatorshortlybeforecurfewtime,findinganapplicationtohighschoolforafemalestudent.Theofficerdidnothavereasonablecausetobelieve_Therriault_Ԁwasviolatingatthetimeofhisentry,andtestifiedthathedidnotneedsuchcause.Afterfindingtheapplication,theofficerlearnedfrom_Therriault_ssisterthatayounggirlhadbeenat_Therriault_shomeforthepasttwoweeks.Laterthatnight,theofficerenteredthehome,findingafourteenyearoldgirlthere,naked,andstayingthenight.TheStatepetitionedtorevoke_Therriault_Ԁforviolatingthegoodcitizenshipconditionofhissuspendedsentence._Therriault_soughttosuppressthefruitsoftheofficerssearchofhishome,butthedistrictcourtheldthat_Therriault_Ԁhadnoexpectationofprivacyprecludingentryintohishomeandthattheentrywasnotasearch.TheSupremeCourtheldthattheISPofficersentryintothehomewasanillegalsearch,butaffirmedrevocationof_Therriault_ssuspendedsentence,holdingthattheinformationreceivedfrom_Therriault_ssisterfitthe independentsourceexceptiontotheexclusionaryrule.Notably,theCourtheldthattheconditionsofthedistrictcourtssentence,notDOCrulesandregulationsinconsistentwiththoseconditions,arecontrollinganddetermineaprobationersreasonableexpectationsofprivacy,includingintheISPcontext.#~%~?#  (-x(% k* k  k     D. ` AutomobileException >J  %~~   ` 0   (# (# _  _Statev._Elison_,2000MT288,302Mont.228,14P.3d456(Yellowstone). 0 Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Regnier,J. Acitizenobserverridingwith H apoliceofficersaw_Elison_Ԁsmokingamarijuanapipeandtoldtheofficer.Theofficerstopped_Elison_Ԁandaskedhimaboutthepipe._Elison_Ԁadmittedtousingthepipeandtoldtheofficerthattherewasmarijuanainhispickup.Theofficerfoundacontainerwithmarijuanabehindthepickupseatandthenarrested_Elison_.TheSupremeCourtheldthattheofficerhadaparticularizedsuspicionfortheinvestigativestopandthattheofficerproperlyasked_Elison_ԀthepreliminaryquestionsaboutthemarijuanapriortogivinghimtheMirandawarnings.   However,theSupremeCourtdeterminedthattheofficerswarrantlessseizureofthemarijuanawasunlawful._Elison_Ԁhadanactualexpectationofprivacyinitemsstowedbehindhispickupseat,thecircumstanceswerenotsufficientlyexigent,andtheofficershouldhaveobtainedawarrantbeforeconductingthesearch.#~%~J#  0   III.  COMMENCEMENTOFPROSECUTION P     A. ` ChargingDocuments P 0 %~~Statev.  Hill(_Kippy_ԀJoe),2000MT308,302Mont.415,#~%~EQ#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1237(Ravalli).  ` Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Hillclaimedthatthecountyattorneycommitted ( x prosecutorialmisconductwhenhedisseminatedinformationtothepublicdespiteajusticecourtorderprohibitingfurtherdisclosure.Hillbasedhisclaimontheuseof prejudicialandunnecessaryfactsinthecountyattorneysaffidavitinsupportoftwoamended_Informations_.TheCourtnotedthatHillsclaimwasnotripeforreviewsincehedidnotaskforrelieffromthedistrictcourt,andtherewasnoprejudicebecauseHillwasacquittedofthechargesaddedtothoseintheoriginalInformation.ItdidnotaddresstheStatesargumentthatajusticecourtdoesnothavethejurisdictiontolimitacountyattorneyspleadingsbeforeadistrictcourt. #~%~Q#   B. ` Publicity U h  %~~ Statev.Hill(_Kippy_ԀJoe),2000MT308,302Mont.415,#~%~U#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1237(Ravalli). H Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Onhismotionforchangeofvenue,theCourtdecided ` thatHillfailedtosatisfythetwoprongsofthetestsetoutin_  _State_v._ԀMoore, x 268Mont.20,885P.2d477(1994),overruledonothergrounds,Statev.  _Gollehon_,274Mont.112,116,906P.2d697,700(1995),andthetrialcourthad  notabuseditsdiscretionwhenitdeniedboththemotionforachangeinvenueandtherequestforapubliclyfundedpoll.Thenewsreportswerereasonablyaccurateandtherewaslittle,ifany,editorializing.ThenewspaperhadwronglyreportedHillsstatementsasa confession,buttheCourtagreedwiththedistrictcourt,whichfoundthattheallegedconfessionwasastalestorynotrecentlyrepeated.Forthesecondprong,Hillfailedtodemonstratethatpressreportscausedactualprejudice.Duringjuryselection,defensecounselchallengedonlyonepotentialjurorforcause,andthatjurorhadactuallyknownthevictim.  SeealsoIII.A.(Prosecutorialmisconductallegedwhen_countyattorney_includedstatementsinaffidavitsupportingamendedinformationafterjusticecourtprohibitedfurtherdisclosure.)#~%~V#  )0%"   IV.  GUILTYPLEAS \  %~~    State_v._ԀMunoz,2001MT85,305Mont.139,23P.3d922(Cascade).Reversed; 0 Nelson,J. InthepleaagreementtheStateagreedtorecommendathreeyear H sentence.Theprosecutorbreachedthepleaagreementatsentencingwhenheurgedthedistrictcourttoadopttheprobationofficerssentencingrecommendations,oneofwhichwasafiveyearsentence.TheSupremeCourtheldthat,asaresultoftheStatesbreachofthepleaagreement,thedefendantonremandhastherighttochoosebetweentheremediesofspecificperformanceofthepleaagreementorwithdrawaloftheguiltyplea.TheCourtaddedthatthedistrictcourt,initsdiscretion,maydisallowthedefendantschoiceofremedyiftheStatedemonstrates withclearandconvincingevidencethatthedefendantschoiceofremedywouldresultinamiscarriageofjustice.TheCourtoverruled_  _Statev._Rardon_,1999MT220,296Mont.19,986P.2d424and_  _Statev._Persak_, 8  256Mont.404,847P.2d280(1993)whichheldthatthechoiceoftheappropriateremedyforabreachofapleaagreementiswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.#~%~\#  `     X   X  8   V.0  PRETRIAL 8c    8  0`      A. ` Discovery c0` `   %~~_  _Statev._Golder_,2000MT239,301Mont.368,9P.3d635(Missoula).  ` Affirmed;_Turnage_,C.J. _Golder_,chargedwithmisdemeanorDUI,movedthe ( x districtcourttoexcludetwostatewitnessesasasanctionfortheStatesfailuretotimelyprovidediscovery.Thedistrictcourtdeniedtherequestsincecounselfor_Golder_Ԁhadknownformonthsaboutthewitnessesandwhattheirtestimonywouldbe.Hepledguiltyandappealed.TheSupremeCourtaffirmed,findingnoabuseofdiscretionbythedistrictcourtsrefusaltoexcludethewitnesses;_there_Ԁwasnoprejudiceorunduesurprise.#~%~9d# %~~   State_v._ԀBaker,2000MT235,301Mont.323,8P.3d817(Sheridan).Affirmed; 8  Gray,J. Bakerwasconvictedofsexualassaultingasevenyearoldgirl.The P districtcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenitdeniedBakersmotionforamistrialbasedonhisallegationthattheStatewithheldexculpatoryevidencebecauseiffailedtotellBakerthatduringthethirdinterviewofthevictimshealsodisclosedthatherfatherhadsexuallyabusedher.SinceBakeradmittedtolawenforcementthathesexuallyassaultedthevictim,thereisnoreasonableprobabilitythattheoutcomeofthetrialwouldhavebeendifferenthadtheStatedisclosedthethirdinterviewpriortotrial._Baker_Ԁfailedtoestablishthisinformationwasmaterialtohiscase.#~%~g# %~~   State_v._ԀDuffy,2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453(_Stillwater_). @ Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Duffywasconvictedoftwocountsofsexual  X intercoursewithoutconsentandtwocountsofincest.Onappeal,Duffyarguedthatthedistrictcourterredwhenitconductedanincamerainspectionofthevictimsconfidentialrecords,butdenieddefensecounseltheopportunitytopersonallyreviewrecords.ThecourtsincamerainspectionproperlybalancedDuffysrighttodiscoverexculpatoryevidencewiththevictimsrighttoprotectherconfidentialrecords.#~%~k#  ($!        l*8  0`      B. ` Motions Ho` `     `  1.0 MotionforAppointmentofSubstituteCounsel o0 (# (#  %~~  State_v._ԀGallagher,2001MT39,304Mont.215,19P.3d817(Cascade).  ` Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Gallaghersfirstappealwasremandedforahearingto ( x determinethevalidityofhiscomplaintsabouthisattorney.ThedistrictcourtaffirmeditspreviousdenialofGallaghersrequestforsubstitutecounsel.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingtherequest.AlthoughGallagherandhisattorneydisagreedaboutwhatdefensewouldbepresentedattrial,Gallagherdidnotcarryhisburdenofprovingatotallackofcommunicationnecessaryforappointmentofnewcounsel.Whileadefendanthastherighttomeaningfulrepresentation,hedoesnothavearighttoameaningfulattorneyclientrelationship.#~%~1p#%~~   State_v._ԀSwan,2000MT246,301Mont.439,10P.3d102(Missoula). h Affirmed;_Turnage_,C.J. CounselwasappointedtorepresentSwan,whowas 0 chargedwithdeliberatehomicide._Swan_Ԁthenfiledaprose MotiontoDismissCourtAppointedCounselinwhichhemadecomplaintsabouttheeffectivenessofappointedcounselandaskedtobeallowedtoproceedprose.Whenthecourtinquiredaboutthemotionatthenexthearing,Swanstatedthathewasactuallyhopingthecourtwouldappointadifferentattorney.Althoughthemotionwasdeniedbythedistrictcourt,threenewattorneyswereassignedbytheP.D.torepresentSwan.Followinghisconviction,Swanclaimedonappealthatthedistrictcourtviolatedhisconstitutionalrighttoselfrepresentation.TheSupremeCourtaffirmed,holdingthatSwansrequestwas anythingbutunequivocalashemadeitclearthatwhathewas actuallyhopingforwastohavedifferentcounselappointedtorepresenthim. #~%~s#%~~  State_v._ԀWright(Byron),2000MT322,302Mont.527,17P.3d982(Hill). h$ Affirmed;Regnier,J.MotiontoDismissforPreIndictmentDelay. Wright %  waschargedwithfourcountsofcriminalsaleofdangerousdrugs.Hepledguiltytotwocountsbutreservedhisrighttoappealthedistrictcourtsdenialofhismotiontodismissongroundsofpreindictmentdelay.LawenforcementhadtaperecordingsofthetwotransactionstowhichWrightpledguilty.Thesameconfidentialinformantwasinvolvedinallfourtransactions.Wrightarguedthattheoneyeardelaywasanimpermissibledelaythathamperedhisdefense__becausethe__Ԁconfidentialinformantcouldnotaccuratelyrecallallofthedetailsof (-x(% l*  l  l  thedrugtransactions,Wrightwasunabletolocatewitnessesonhisbehalf,andtheStatefailedtopreserveevidencenecessarytohisdefense.Wrightfailedtoprovehisdueprocessrightswereviolatedbythedelay,andthathesufferedactual,substantialprejudicefromtheoneyeardelayinprosecution.Wrightrelieduponatheoryof_entrapmentand/oralibi_Ԁattrialandclaimedhecouldnotprovethesedefensesbecausetheconfidentialinformantcouldnotaccuratelyremembersignificantdetailsaboutthediscussionleadinguptothedrugtransactions.Attrial,theconfidentialinformanttestifiedshedidnothingtoinduceWrightintosellingherdrugsotherthantoaskhim.Wrightwasabletocrossexaminetheconfidentialinformantandpresentotherrelevantevidencetoproveentrapment.TheofficersrecordedthetwotransactionsbetweenWrightandtheconfidentialinformanttowhichWrightpledguilty.Wrightsassertionthatthedelaypreventedhimfromcontactingpotentialwitnessestotestifyinsupportofhisdefenseswasmerespeculation.Wrightfailedtoestablishactualprejudicefromthefailuretorecordthefirsttwotransactionswhenthosetwocountsweredismissed.TheCourtwassomewhatcriticaloftheofficersdestructionoffieldnotesimmediatelyaftertransferringthatinformationintoareport,althoughthedestructionoffieldnoteswasthenormalcourseofconductandwasnotrelatedtothedelayincharging.#~%~x#%~~    `  2.0 MotionforChangeofVenue  (# (#  Statev.  Hill(_Kippy_ԀJoe),2000MT308,302Mont.415,#~%~#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1237(Ravalli).  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. TheCourtdecidedthatHillfailedtosatisfythetwo ( prongsofthetestsetoutinState_v._Ԁ  Moore,268Mont.20,885P.2d477(1994), @ overruledonothergrounds,_  _Statev._Gollehon_,274Mont.112,116,906P.2d697,  X 700(1995),andthetrialcourthadnotabuseditsdiscretionwhenitdeniedboththemotionforachangeinvenueandtherequestforapubliclyfundedpoll.Thenewsreportswerereasonablyaccurateandtherewaslittle,ifany,editorializing.ThenewspaperhadwronglyreportedHillsstatementsasa confession,buttheCourtagreedwiththedistrictcourt,whichfoundthattheallegedconfessionwasastalestorynotrecentlyrepeated.Forthesecondprong,Hillfailedtodemonstratethatpressreportscausedactualprejudice.Duringjuryselection,defensecounselchallengedonlyonepotentialjurorforcause,andthatjurorhadactuallyknownthevictim.  *H&# m*   `  3.0 MotiontoExcludeEvidence  (# (#  #~%~#~~_  _Statev.Gustafson,2000MT364,57State_Rptr_.1554,15P.3d944(Cascade). 0 Affirmed;_sentence_Ԁenhancementprovisionstricken;Trieweiler,J. TheCourt H affirmedthedistrictcourtsdenialofGustafsonsmotionstoexcludetestimonyregardingtheeventssurroundinghisarrest.Gustafsonwaschargedwithfelonyassault,partner/familymemberassaultandunlawfulrestraint.Priortotrial,Gustafsonmovedtoexcludethetestimonyoftwowitnessesasirrelevantandunfairlyprejudicial.TheCourtheldthatthetestimonyofonewitnesswasrelevantbecauseitcorroboratedthevictimstestimonyonthefelonyassaultcharge.#~~?# %~~ #~%~#%~~  State_v._ԀBrady,2000MT282,302Mont.174,13P.3d941(Missoula).   Affirmed;Hunt,J. ArchieGalenBrady,drivingaloneonMontana200between 8  _Seeley_ԀLakeandMissoula,swerved,lefttheroad,struckarockwall,androlledover.Atruckdriversawhimdrivingfastanderraticallyjustbeforetheaccident.LawenforcementofficersarrivedafterBradyhadleft,buttheyfoundhiswallet,whichcontainedhisexpireddriverslicense.Bradyslicensehadbeensuspendedearlier.AfteralawenforcementinterviewatBradyshome,hewaschargedwithfelonyDUIandthreemisdemeanors:_driving_Ԁwhilesuspended,failuretoprovideproofofinsurance,andfailuretogivenoticeoftheaccident.  Justbeforetrial,Bradypledtothethreemisdemeanorsandsecuredastipulationthatneitherthesenorthesuspendedstatusofhislicensewouldbementionedtothejury.Attrial,apoliceofficer,whiledescribinghisinvestigationatthesceneofthewreck,saidthathefoundBradyswalletwithhisexpiredlicenseinside.Bradymovedforamistrial,arguingthattheorderin_limine_Ԁhadbeenviolated.TheCourtagreedwiththetrialcourtandtheStatethatthestipulationappliedtothesuspended,nottheexpired,statusofthelicenseandthatanexpiredlicensewouldnotsuggestpriorcriminalbehavior.Thetrialcourtalsoadmonishedthejurythat [_a]n_ԀexpiredlicenseisnoindicationofguiltofanyoffensebytheDefendant.  Bradyalsoarguedthatmistrialshouldhavebeengrantedbecausetheofficerdeliberatelytransgressedtheorderin_limine_.Theprosecutorhadtoldthetrialcourtthatshehadadvisedherwitnessesnottomentionthelicensessuspendedstatus,andtheCourtagreedthattherewasnoevidenceontherecordtorefutethatassertion.TheCourtdistinguishedthiscasefrom  State_v._ԀPartin,297Mont.12, *H&# 951P.2d1002(1997),inwhichitwasundisputedthatanofficerstestimonyviolatedanorderin_limine_Ԁandwasinadmissible. (-x(% m* m  m  #~%~#   C.0 ` JurySelection ` (#` (# %~~   _  _Statev._Highpine_,2000MT368,57State_Rptr_.1573,15P.3d938(Cascade). 0 Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Leaphart,J. Relyingon_  _Statev._LaMere_, H 2000MT45,298Mont.358,2P.3d204,theCourtheldthattheclerkofthedistrictcourtfailedtofollowthestatutoryproceduresfordrawingandnotifyingjurors.TheCourtconcludedthatthedistrictcourterredwhenitruledthat_Highpine_Ԁwasnotprejudicedbythestatutoryviolations.TheCourtordereda newtrialwithanimpartialjurydrawnandsummonedinamannersubstantiallyincompliancewiththelaw. #~%~]#8  0`      D. ` Severance A ` `    %~~ _  _Statev.Enright/Link,2000MT372,57State_Rptr_.1590,16P.3d366 8  (JudithBasin).Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Followingthereversaloftheirseparate P convictions,EnrightandLinkweretriedtogetherinaconsolidatedtrialandconvictedagainofarsonandhomicidecharges.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthetrialswereproperlyconsolidated,despitethefactthatsomeoftheevidencemayhavebeenrelevantonlytothechargesagainstoneofthedefendants.LinkfailedtochallengetheadmissibilityofaletterwrittenbyEnrightonconfrontationgroundsandtherebywaivedtheissueforpurposesofappeal.Theevidencewassufficienttosupporttheconvictions.#~%~#      H   H [`*n*o*  8   VI.  TRIAL     8  0`      A. ` Evidence 0` `     `  1.0 Relevance  ` (# (#  %~~_  _Statev._LaDue_,2001MT47,304Mont.288,20P.3d775(SilverBow). @  Affirmed;Nelson,J. Thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenitdenied X  thedefendantsmotiontocalladditionalwitnessesafterthetrialhadbegunbecausetherecordsupportsthecourtsdeterminationthatthetestimonythedefendantwishedtoofferthroughtheadditionalwitnesseswasnotprobative. #~%~F#Statev.  Gustafson,2000MT364,57State_Rptr_.1554,15P.3d944(Cascade).   Affirmed;_sentence_Ԁenhancementprovisionstricken;Trieweiler,J. TheCourt 8  affirmedthedistrictcourtsdenialofGustafsonsmotionstoexcludetestimonyregardingtheeventssurroundinghisarrest.Gustafsonwaschargedwithfelonyassault,partner/familymemberassaultandunlawfulrestraint.Priortotrial,Gustafsonmovedtoexcludethetestimonyoftwowitnessesasirrelevantandunfairlyprejudicial.TheCourtheldthatthetestimonyofonewitnesswasrelevantbecauseitcorroboratedthevictimstestimonyonthefelonyassaultcharge.    `  2. Foundation   %~~  Inre_J.M._ԀJr.,2001MT51,304Mont.303,21P.3d618(Yellowstone). @ Affirmed;Regnier,J. Motherwasprovidedwitha BabyThinkitOverDoll  X whichwasoutfittedwithacontrolmoduleprogrammedtorespondtoincidentsofneglectorabuse.Whilein_mothers_Ԁpossession,thedollrecordedoneincidentofabuse.TheStatelatersoughttoterminate_mothers_Ԁrightsforfailingtocompletehertreatmentplan.Atthehearing,theStateintroducedevidenceregardingthedollabuseincidentovercounselsobjectionthatinsufficientfoundationexistedforitsadmission.TheSupremeCourtfounderror,concludingthattheStatefailedtoshow,giventhebasisfortermination,howtheevidencehadatendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactofconsequenceeithermoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence,andbecausetheStatefailedtoproduceevidenceofthedollsreliability.ButtheCourtdeemedtheerrorharmlessandaffirmedtheorderoftermination.#~%~#  (-x(% n* n  n     `  3. ConfessionsandAdmissions U   %~~Statev.  Hill(_Kippy_ԀJoe),2000MT308,302Mont.415,#~%~#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1237(Ravalli). 0 Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. _Hill_Ԁclaimedthathisvideotapedstatementwas H involuntary,arguingthattheMirandawarningswereinadequatebecausethe  ` demeanoroftheofficerswasmisleading,therewasinsufficientdiscussionofhisconstitutionalrights,theofficersusedcoercivetactics,hisrepeatedattemptstoendtheinterviewwereignored,andhelackedthementalcapacitytoknowinglywaivehisrights.TheCourtcitedState_v._Ԁ  Hermes,273Mont.446,904P.2d587 p  (1995),whichstatedseveralfactorstobeconsideredwhendeterminingthevoluntarinessofaconfessionunderthetotalityofthecircumstances.Thosefactorswere(1)thedefendantsageandlevelofeducation;(2)theinterrogationtechnique;(3)theadvisementofMirandarights;(4)thedefendantsprior   experiencewiththepolice;and(5)thedefendantsownbackgroundandexperience.HillreliedonState_v._Ԁ  Allies,186Mont.99,606P.2d1043(1979), P tosupporthisclaimthatthepoliceusedcoercivetactics.TheCourtnotedthatHillhadslightlybelowaverageintelligence,buttherecordshowedhewascapableofunderstanding.TheCourtdistinguishedAlliesfromthiscase,notingthatHill H knewfromthebeginningthathewasasuspect;_he_Ԁwasinterviewedthedaythevictimsbodywasdiscovered;_he_Ԁlaterchangedhisstatementtodeflectsuspicionwhenhereturnedtothestationafewdayslatertohavehairsamplestaken;_he_receivedadequateMirandawarningsjustbeforetheinterview;_he_Ԁwasfully  coherentduringtheinterview;_he_Ԁwasnotmisledabouttheevidenceagainsthim;_and_,althoughtheofficersappealedtohismorality,theydidnotpromiseorthreatenanyparticulartreatment._Hill_Ԁdidnotrequestanattorney,butaskedtoseehiswifeandchildren,whichdidnot,inthecontextofthisinterview,appeartobeanattempttoseeklegaladvice.Hedidnotspecificallyrequestthattheinterviewterminate,andhewasbroughtwaterwhenherequestedit.Hillalsohad_had_Ԁsomeexposuretothepolicefromearliermisdemeanors. _  _State_v._ԀScarborough,2000MT301,302Mont.350,14P.3d1202(Lake). %  Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Scarboroughhasschizophrenia.Inthecourseofa &! homicideinvestigation,Scarboroughgaveatapedinterviewatthepolicestationinwhichheallegedsomeoneelsewasresponsibleforthecrime.Afterward,whenhewasbeingtakeninapatrolcartothejail,Scarboroughmadespontaneousstatementswhichindicatedhecommittedthemurder.Hemovedtosuppressthe confessionsandadmissionsfrombothstatements,claimingthestatementsweretheproductsofpsychologicalcoercion,particularlysincetheinterviewingofficer (-x(% o* o  o  askedScarboroughwhetherhemayhavecommittedthehomicideinsomekindofschizophrenicblackout.ThedistrictcourtdeniedthemotiontosuppressandtheSupremeCourtaffirmed.TheCourtfoundanumberoffactorstosupporttheconclusionsthatthedistrictcourtsfindingswerenotclearlyerroneous.#~%~b# %~~_  _Stateexrel._Mazurek_Ԁv.DistrictCourt(Ingraham),2000MT266,302Mont.39, ( x 22P.3d166(Lake).Reversed;Gray,J. Ingrahamwasconvictedofnegligent @  homicide,criminalendangerment,andcriminaltrespassasaresultofafatalaccidentwherebloodtestsshowedIngrahamhadalcoholandprescription_meds_Ԁinhissystem.Onappeal,theSupremeCourtvacatedthejudgmentandremandedforanewtrialholdingthat_itprejudicial_ԀerrorfortheStatetointroduceevidenceregardingtheprescriptiondrugsbecausetherewasnoshownnexusbetweenthemedication,thealcohol,andtheaccident.  On_retrial_,IngrahamsoughttoprecludetheStatesuseofhispriortestimonyregardingtheprescriptiondrugs.ThedistrictcourtruledinfavorofIngrahamonthebasisofMont.CodeAnn.  4616701( thegrantingofanewtrialplacesthepartiesinthesamepositionasiftherehadbeennotrial.)TheStatepetitionedforsupervisorycontrolandtheSupremeCourtreversedthetrialcourtsruling,holdingthatthestatuteshouldnotbeconstruedinsuchamannerastoconflictwiththerulesofevidence,whichwouldotherwiseauthorizetheuseofthepriortestimony.8  TheSupremeCourtalsorejectedIngrahamsargumentthatuseofhispriortestimonywouldconstituteaFifthAmendmentviolationbecausehewas compelledtotestifyinresponsetotheStatesimproperuseofthedrugevidence.TheCourtfollowedtheanalysisof_  _Harrison_v._ԀUnitedStates,392U.S.219(1968) @ andheldthataFifthAmendmentviolationoccursonlywhentheStateuses  X  constitutionally infirmevidenceagainstthedefendant.Here,thecourtwasdealing  !p withan evidentiary infirmity,thereisno fruitofthepoisonoustreeproblem. 8"  #~%~#8   `  4. Rule404/CharacterEvidence  h$ %~~  State_v._ԀHart,2000MT332,___Mont.___,15P.3d917(Yellowstone). &! Affirmedinpart,vacatedinpart;Regnier,J. Hartbrutallybeathisnieceabout '#  herfacewithastunguninherownhomeaftershetriedtodefendherfriendwhowasoffendedbyHartsoffensivecomment.ThevictimexplainedduringrebuttalthatHartownedandcarriedthestungunbecauseheusedittopreventbeing_caughtshoplifting_Ԁatlocalstores.ThisrebuttalwasproperevidencerelevantandadmissibletocounteractingHart'sdirecttestimonyfirstintroducing"newmatters" (-x(% `* `  `  chargingthatthevictimownedandcarriedthestunguntouseagainstherdogs. Byrelyingonwhythevictimownedandpossessedthestunguninherhouseto  implythathertestimonywasnotworthyofbelief,HartopenedthedoortoafullexplanationfromthevictimwhyHartownedandcarriedthestungun.Thedistrictcourtrecognizedthisfact,anditdidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenitrefusedtoexcludetheevidenceunderMont.R.Evid.403and404(b). #~%~/#%~~State_v._Ԁ  Scarborough,2000MT301,302Mont.350,#~%~w#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1202(Lake). X  Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Despiteanin_limine_Ԁorderprohibitingtheintroductionof p  priorcrimesevidence,aStateswitnesstestifiedthatdefendantwasonprobation,and,later,arecordingofdefendantsinterviewwiththepolicewasplayedinwhichdefendanttoldthepolicehewasonprobation.Followingtheintroductionofeachstatement,defensemovedforamistrial.Themotionsweredenied,butthedistrictcourtinstructedthejuryafterthefirststatementtodisregarditbecausetherewasnoevidencesupportingit.Thesecondstatementwas_defendants_Ԁownstatementtothepoliceunderoath,anddefensecounselknewwhatwassaidinthatinterview,butdidnotobjectwhenthestateoffereditintoevidence.Onappeal,theSupremeCourtfound,basedontheoverwhelmingevidence,therewasnoreasonableprobabilitytheinadvertentevidencecontributedtohisconviction.#~%~#%~~ _  _Statev._Gowan_,2000MT277,302Mont.127,13P.3d376(Flathead).  Reversed;Hunt,J. Agratuitouscharacterstatementmadebyadefensewitness,  whilebeingcrossexaminedbytheState,doesnotopenthedoortorebuttalcharacterevidence.ThefactsherearethereforedistinguishablefromthoseinStatev._Austad_,inwhichthedefendanthimselfopenedthedoorwithhisown @ statements.Under  Mont.R.Evid.404(a)(1),onlytheaccusedcanopenthedoorfortheprosecutiontointroducerebuttalcharacterevidence.#~%~h#    `  5. OpinionandExpertTestimony  P#  %~~   State_v._ԀWhipple,2001MT16,304Mont.118,19P.3d228(Missoula). %  Affirmed;Regnier,J. (Gray,_C.J._,Nelson,J.,Leaphart,J.,Trieweiler,J., &! concurring).JayBurkeWhipplewasconvictedbyajuryoffourcountsoffelonysexualassaultinviolationofMont.CodeAnn.  455502forthreeinstancesofsexualcontactwithanineyearoldgirlandoneinstancewithaneightyearoldgirl.  ,`'$ v*t*qsw*  TheCourtdeclinedtoinvoketheplainerrorrulebecauseWhipplefailedtodemonstratewithsufficientprecisionwhichfundamentalrightwasimplicatedbytheerrorinquestion.Thebasisoftheplainerrorclaimwasopiniontestimony,expertandotherwise,onthechildrenscredibility,allofwhichcameintoevidencewithout_objection_.(Whipplealsousedexperttestimonytoattackthevictimscredibility,buttheCourt_didnotreferto_Ԁthat.)Thetestimonyconflictedwithrestrictionslaiddownby_  _Statev._Hensley_,250Mont.478,821P.2d1029(1991). @  TheCourtsaid, Itisnotobvioustous,norwasitlikelyobvioustotheStatewhenbriefingthisissue,exactlywhichrightofWhipplescontainedin  ArticleII,section24wascompromisedbytheallegederror.Itreferredtothatsectionasa laundrylistofrights[_,]_saying, Becauseclaimsofplainerrorarealmostinvariablyclaimsraisedforthefirsttimeinadefendantsbriefonappeal,adefendantmustdomorethansimplymakeageneralizedclaimthathisorherconstitutionalrightswereviolatedbytheallegederror.#~%~# %~~Statev.  Hill(_Kippy_ԀJoe),2000MT308,302Mont.415,#~%~@#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1237(Ravalli). h Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Relyingon  _Ake_Ԁv.Oklahoma,407U.S.68(1985), 0 Hillrequestedappointmentofapsychiatristforanexaminationsupportinghisdefenseofmitigateddeliberatehomicide.Hedidnotraisetheexistenceofamentaldiseaseordefectasanaffirmativedefense.TheCourtsaid, [_T]he_ԀStatesdutytoprovidemeaningfulassistancetoindigentdefendantsdoesnotencompasseveryconceivabledefensestrategy.Rather,therighttoapsychologicalevaluationisalimitedoneandisinvokedonlywhenthedefendantsmentalstatehasbeenplaceddirectlyatissue.23.Absentapreliminaryshowingofmentaldiseaseordefect,thereisnostatutoryrighttotheappointmentofapsychiatrist.24.Mont.CodeAnn.  4614202and205._Ake_requiresathresholdshowing  X sufficienttogivethetrialcourtreasonablegroundtodoubtadefendantssanityatthetimeoftheoffense.25,citing  Williamsv.Collins,989F.2d841(5thCir. 8" 1993).TheCourtdistinguished  State_v._ԀFish,190Mont.461,621P.2d1072 P# (1980),which_helditaviolation_Ԁofdueprocesstoexcludepsychologicaltestimonyonthestateofmindofadefendantchargedwithdeliberatehomicide,notingthatFishwasconcernedwithevidenceearliergatheredattheinitiativeof &! thedefendant,notwiththe antecedentquestionofwhethertheStatemustappointanexperttoassistinthepreparationofsuchtestimony.28.TheCourtaffirmedthedistrictcourtsdenialofthemotion,thoughitnoteditdidnotmeantoimplythatatrialcourtmayneverexerciseitsdiscretiontofundapsychologicalexaminationexceptwhenrequiredbystatute. #~%~#%~~  (-x(% \*[* \  [\   [     Statev.  Hill(_Kippy_ԀJoe),2000MT308,302Mont.415,#~%~`#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1237(Ravalli).  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. _Hill_Ԁmovedforstatefundsforanexperttoconducta   postmortempsychologicalautopsy.TheCourtaffirmedthedistrictcourtsdenialofthemotion,reviewingitforabuseofdiscretion.30._Hill_Ԁarguedthattheevaluationwasnecessarytoestablishpsychologicalfactorsinthecausationofthevictimsdeath.Hisargumentwasthatthevictimsconfrontationalnature,whenjuxtaposedtothementalcapacityofthedefendant,wouldsupportafindingofmitigation.TheCourtsaid_thatsupplyingstatefunds_Ԁforsuchanevaluationlaywithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt.Further,thevictimsstateofmindwasnotrelevantunder  Mont.R.Evid.401.Also,theevidenceHillsoughttoelicitdidnotrequireexperttestimony.Assessingthevictimspersonalitywasnotbeyondtheunderstandingofanaveragejuror,andtheStateofferednoevidencecontradictingHillsdepictionofthevictim.35. #~%~#%~~State_v._Ԁ  Scarborough,2000MT301,302Mont.350,#~%~#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1202(Lake). P Affirmed;_Leaphart,J. Scarborough,adiagnosedschizophrenic,committed h deliberatehomicide._ԀAtdefenserequest,hewasevaluatedattheStateHospitalinWarmSprings.TheStateprovidedthemitspolicereports.TheWarmSpringsreportconcludedthatScarboroughwasprobablynotrespondingtopsychoticmotivationatthetimeofthecrime,thathehadthecapacitytoactpurposelyorknowingly,andwascapableofassistinginhisowndefense.Scarboroughthenrequested,andwasgranted,anindependentevaluation.TheStaterequesteditsownevaluation,butScarboroughobjected,assertingthattheWarmSpringsevaluationwas,infact,aStatesevaluation.ThedistrictcourtgrantedtheStatesrequest.Onappeal,heclaimedhewasdeniedafairtrialsincetheStateessentiallyhadmoreexpertsthathedid.TheSupremeCourtfound nobasisinlawforScarboroughsargument.ItfoundnoevidencewhichwouldwarrantattributingtheWarmSpringsreporttotheState;_additionally_,Scarboroughhadtwoexpertsattrial,whiletheStatehadonlyone.Therewasnoabuseofdiscretionorprejudicetothedefense.#~%~Z# %~~#~%~#8%~~State_v._Ԁ  Duffy,2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453(_Stillwater_).Affirmed; &! Trieweiler,J. Duffywasconvictedoftwocountsofsexualintercoursewithout '#  consentandtwocountsofincest.Onappeal,Duffyarguedthatthedistrictcourterredwhenitconductedanincamerainspectionofthevictimsconfidentialrecords,butdenieddefensecounseltheopportunitytopersonallyreviewrecords.ThecourtsincamerainspectionproperlybalancedDuffysrighttodiscoverexculpatoryevidencewiththevictimsrighttoprotectherconfidentialrecords. (-x(% v* v  v  8 #~%~#    `  6. Hearsay   %~~   State_v._ԀJenkins,2001MT79,305Mont.95,23P.3d201(LewisandClark). 0 Affirmed;_Leaphart,J. (Gray,C.J.,Trieweiler,J.,Regnier,J.,Nelson,J., H concurring)._ԀJenkinsfiledapostconvictionreliefpetitionallegingineffectivenessbecausedefensecounselobjectedonlyonevidentiarygrounds,notdenialoffederalconfrontationalgrounds,tohearsaypriorinconsistentstatementsof_witness_.ThewitnesshadAlzheimersrelatedmemorylossandeitherfailedtorecallearlierstatementsorretractedstatementsoncrossexamination.Thedistrictcourt,havingruledthewitnesswascompetenttotestify,despitementaldeficits,heldthatadmissionofthepriorinconsistentstatementsdidnotviolateJenkinsconfrontationalrightsbecausethewitnesswasavailabletotestifyandwassubjectedtounrestrictedcrossexamination.TheCourtnotedithadadoptedthelanguageandholdingof  UnitedStates_v._ԀOwens,484U.S.554(1988),in  Statev. 8  Maier,1999MT51,293Mont.403,977P.2d298: P 8   ` TheConfrontationClauseincludesnoguaranteethateverywitnesscalledbytheprosecutionwillrefrainfromgivingtestimonythatismarredbyforgetfulness,confusion,orevasion.Tothecontrary,theConfrontationClauseisgenerallysatisfiedwhenthedefenseisgivenafullandfairopportunitytoprobeandexposetheseinfirmitiesthroughcross-examination,therebycallingtotheattentionofthe_factfinder_Ԁthereasonsforgivingscantweighttothewitness'testimony.    8   ` ....    8   ` Itissufficientthatthedefendanthastheopportunitytobringoutsuchmattersasthewitness'bias,hislackofcareandattentiveness,hispooreyesight,andeven(whatisoftenaprimeobjectiveofcross-examination)theveryfactthathehasabadmemory.    Owens,484U.S.at55859,citedbyJenkinsat19.Ofthewitness,theCourt &! saidthat,underOwens,Jenkinsconfrontationalrightwassatisfiedbyhis '#  opportunitytocrossexaminethewitnessanddemonstratethewitnessunreliablememory.ItaffirmedthedistrictcourtsrulingthatJenkinswasnotdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel. (-x(% t* t  t  8 #~%~#%~~State_v._Ԁ  Whipple,2001MT16,304Mont.118,19P.3d228(Missoula).  Affirmed;Regnier,J. (Gray,_C.J._,Nelson,J.,Leaphart,J.,Trieweiler,J.,  concurring).JayBurkeWhipplewasconvictedbyajuryoffourcountsoffelonysexualassaultinviolationofMont.CodeAnn.  455502forthreeinstancesofsexualcontactwithanineyearoldgirlandoneinstancewithaneightyearoldgirl.8  Whipplearguesonappealthatthedistrictcourthaderredbyallowingthegirlsphysiciantotestifyontheirremarkstohimabouttheincidents.Hecontended,andtheCourtagreed,thatthetestimonydidnotfitwithinthemedicaltreatmentexceptiontothehearsayrulebecausethegirlsweretakentothephysiciannotfortreatmentbutattherequestofthepolice.TheCourtheldtheerrorharmlessbecausethegirlsalsotestified,andtheirtestimonyforthemostpartsimplyduplicatedwhattheyhadtoldthephysician.Itcitedwithapproval  State_v._   Alexander,265Mont.192,875P.2d345(1994),whichsaidthatevidence   admittederroneouslywasharmlessbecauseitincludedonlyinformationlaterverifiedbyproperlyadmittedevidence.TheCourtalsomentioned,onthispoint,  State_v._ԀWashington,506S.E.2d283(N.C.Ct.App.1998). h  #~%~#8%~~State_v._Ԁ  Duffy,2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453(_Stillwater_).Affirmed; H Trieweiler,J. Duffywasconvictedoftwocountsofsexualintercoursewithout ` consentandtwocountsofincest.Onappeal,Duffyarguedthatthedistrictcourterredwhenitconductedanincamerainspectionofthevictimsconfidentialrecords,butdenieddefensecounseltheopportunitytopersonallyreviewrecords.ThecourtsincamerainspectionproperlybalancedDuffysrighttodiscoverexculpatoryevidencewiththevictimsrighttoprotectherconfidentialrecords.#~%~V#%~~ (  #~%~T #8   `  7. DocumentaryEvidence/Exhibits    X %~~_  _Statev.Stewart,2000MT379,57State_Rptr_.1615,16P.3d391(Missoula). 8" Reversedandremanded;Nelson,J. (Regnier,J.,Hunt,J.,Leaphart,J., P# concurring)(Gray,J.,concurringinpart,dissentinginpart).Stewartwasconvictedofattemptingtofraudulentlyobtaindangerousdrugs,afelony,inviolationof  459104and106.Hehadthreeprescriptionsfromhisdoctor:_Percocet_,_Ultran_,anonnarcoticpainrelieveradjunctto_Percocet_,andSoma,amusclerelaxant.Hedividedtheprescriptionsbetweentwopharmacies.Atone,hefilledthe_Percocet_Ԁand_Ultran_Ԁprescriptions,butthepharmacistnotedthattheonefor_Percocet_Ԁhadbeenalteredfrom30tabletsto80,buttheRomannumeralsfor30, xxx,inparenthesesnexttotheArabicnumerals,werenotaltered.  (-x(% q q   q  8  Attrial,theprosecutor,whohadnotlocatedtheSomaprescriptionform,deducedfromthedefensesopeningstatementwhereithadbeenfilledandobtaineditoverthelunchhour.Ithadbeensimilarlyaltered.Theprosecutordidnotimmediatelydiscloseittodefensecounsel,waitinginsteadtoconfrontStewartwithitafterhehadtakenthestandtodenythathehadalteredthe_Percocet_Ԁprescription,claimingthatsomeoneelseinhishomewhohadaccesstotheformhadchangedit.TheCourtreversedonthisissue,pointingtothestatutorydutyfortheStatetodisclose allpapers,documents,photographs,ortangibleobjectsunderMont.CodeAnn.  4615322(1)(d).ItalsoconsideredthechangeinthetenorofthecaseaftertheintroductionofthealteredSomaprescription,notingthattheprosecutormentionedtheSomaprescriptiontwelvetimesduringclosingargumenteventhoughStewarthadnotbeenchargedwithanycrimeconnectedtoit. #~%~6 #8   `  8. StateofMind  8  8%~~Statev.  _Clausell_,2001MT62,305Mont.1,22P.3d1111(Yellowstone). h Affirmed;Nelson,J. _Clausell_Ԁshothisgirlfriendintheheadwithhisowngunin 0 theearlymorninghoursathisapartment,thentookhisgirlfriendtotheemergencyroomandclaimeditwasanaccident.Thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenitdenied_Clausell_'smotionforadirectedverdictofacquittalondeliberatehomicide.Thelawpermittedthejurytodrawinferencesfromtheevidence  presentedattrialregardingtheshootingin_Clausell_'sbedroom.FromotherStateevidence,thejurycouldeasilyinfer_Clausell_Ԁpulledthetrigger.Further,allof_Clausell_'sactionsandstatementsaftertheshootingpointssquarelytohisconsciousnessofguiltandhiseffortstoconcealthecrime._Clausell_ԀwronglyassertsthattosustainaconvictiontheStatemustestablishmotiveandflightwhicharenotelementsofthecrime. #~%~#_  _Statev._Zeltner_,2000MT319,302Mont.504,15P.3d384(Gallatin). P# Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. TheStatecharged_Zeltner_Ԁwiththefailuretoremainat h$ thesceneofaninjuryaccidentandfailuretogivenoticeofanaccidentbythequickestmeansafterhestruckapedestrianin_Bozeman_,thenspedawaywithoutstoppinghiscarorcallingthepolice.Viewingtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,sufficientevidenceexistedforthedistrictcourttoconvict_Zeltner_.TheCourtrejected_Zeltner_sargumentthathedidnotknowthevictimwasinjured.However,_Zeltner_Ԁattrialadmittedthevictimlandedonhiscarshood,andheadmittedknowingthepotentialforinjuryinherentinanimpactbetweenapedestrianandacar.TheCourtalsorejected_Zeltner_sargumentthatthe (-x(% s s  X s  typeofharmthevictimsustainedwasnotan"injury"becauseitwasminor.Theplainstatutorymeaningof"bodilyinjury"inthecriminalstatuteincludesphysicalpain.Thevictimspecificallytestifiedaboutherinjuriesinflictedwhen_Zeltner_'scarstruckherandcausedhertorollacrossthecar'shood.  H    `  9.0 SufficiencyoftheEvidenceandCredibility } ( x # # %~~     State_v._ԀLopez,2001MT97,305Mont.218,___P.3d___(Cascade).Reversed X  andremanded;Trieweiler,J. TheStateconcedederrorbasedonStatev._LaMere_, p  298Mont.358,2P.3d204(2000).TheonlyquestiononappealwaswhethertheStateshouldbeallowedtoretrytheassaultand_kidnapping_Ԁchargesinlightofdefendantsargumentthattherewasinsufficientevidenceofguilt.TheSupremeCourtheldthattherewas,andthusremandedforanewtrial.#~%~ # %~~   State_v._ԀMartin(a/k/aJamesGeneTrujillo),2001MT83,305Mont.123,23P.3d P 216(Missoula).Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Gray,C.J. Martin h attemptedtocashastolencheckatabank.Theteller,recognizinghimfromanearlierincident,stalledhimwhilehercolleaguescalledthepolice.Martinfledfromthebankwhenhesawanofficercomingonfoot.TheofficeryelledforMartintostopandchasedhimacrossastreetintoaparkinglot,whereMartinturnedandfiredtwice.Abulletstrucktheofficersspine,permanentlyparalyzinghimfromtheneckdown.Martintookthefallenofficerspistolandfled,hidingfirstinabakeryandthen,routedfromthebakerybypolice,enteredawoodenstructureattheendofablindalley.Anofficeryelledforhimtocomeout,sawMartinlookingathimthroughtheboxsentrance,andthensawMartinpointingagunathim.Theofficerfired,andMartinsurrendered.  TheCourtrejectedMartinsargumentthattherewasinsufficientevidencethathehadtherequisitementalstatetobeconvictedofattempteddeliberatehomicide.TheopinionnotesMont.CodeAnn.   452103(3),whichprovidesthattheexistenceofamentalstatemaybeinferredfromconductandsurroundingcircumstances.Mont.CodeAnn.  452101(34)and(64),whichdefinetherelevantmentalstates(purposeorknowledge)donotrequire thatthecriminalactbecarefullythoughtout,plannedwellinadvance,orwise.17.  ReferringtoevidenceshowingMartinsconductwhenheshotthepoliceofficer,theCourtreiterateditsstandardofreviewforsufficiencyoftheevidence,deferringtothejuryspowertoresolveconflicts.Evidenceissufficienttosupportajuryverdictif,viewingitinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsoftheoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.17. @.)& w w  X w  8  Itappliedthesamereasoningtoaffirmtheconvictiononfelonyassault,whichoccurredwhen_Martin,run_Ԁtoearthinablindalley,pointedagunatanofficer.50.#~%~## %~~ Statev.  ԀMartin(a/k/aJamesGeneTrujillo),2001MT83,305Mont.123,  ` 23P.3d216(Missoula).Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Gray,C.J.  ( x Martinattemptedtocashastolencheckatabank.Martinfledfromthebankwhenhesawanofficercomingonfoot.TheofficeryelledforMartintostopandchasedhimacrossastreetintoaparkinglot,whereMartinturnedandfiredtwice.Abulletstrucktheofficersspine,permanentlyparalyzinghimfromtheneckdown.Martintookthefallenofficerspistolandfled,hidingfirstinabakeryandthen,routedfromthebakerybypolice,enteredawoodenstructureattheendofablindalley.  TheCourtdividedonMartinsconvictionsforescapeandaggravatedburglary.Theevidencewasthattheuniformedofficer,whilepursuingMartin,shouted stopor halt.Theconvictionofaggravatedburglary!forenteringthebakerytoavoidcapturedependedontheconvictionofescape.Themajoritysaidthefactsofthiscasesatisfiedthethreeparttestforanarrestsetoutin  State_v._ H Thornton,218Mont.317,32223,708P.2d273,277(1985):(1)authorityto ` arrest;(2)assertionofthatauthoritywithintentiontoeffectanarrest;and(3)restrainofthepersonarrested.Thequestionwaswhethertheofficerassertedhisauthoritywithintentionto_effect_Ԁanarrest.Thedissentarguedthatthewords stopor haltaloneshouldnot_effect_Ԁanarrest;_the_Ԁmajoritydidnotbelieveitsconclusiontobethatbroad,thatthecircumstancesofthiscaseshowed areasonablepersonwouldnothavefeltfreetowalkawayfromtheuniformedpoliceofficerrunningafterhimandshoutingHaltorStop.40.#~%~-# %~~ State_v._Ԁ  Martin(a/k/aJamesGeneTrujillo),2001MT83,305Mont.123, 8" 23P.3d216(Missoula).Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Gray,C.J.  P# TheCourtunanimouslystruckdownMartinsconvictionforfelonytheftbecausetherewasinsufficientevidencetoallowthejurytofindthatthevalueoftheofficerspistolwasgreaterthan$500.TheStatereliedonthecostofreplacementoftheofficerspistol,failingtodemonstratetheactualmarketvalueofthepistolorthatthemarketvaluecouldnotbesatisfactorilyascertained,asrequiredbyMont.CodeAnn.   452101(76)(a).61. #~%~5#  *H&# %~~Statev.  _Clausell_,2001MT62,305Mont.1,22P.3d1111(Yellowstone).  Affirmed;Nelson,J. _Clausell_Ԁshothisgirlfriendintheheadwithhisowngunin  theearlymorninghoursathisapartment,thentookhisgirlfriendtotheemergencyroomandclaimeditwasanaccident.Thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenitdenied_Clausell_'smotionforadirectedverdictofacquittalondeliberatehomicide.Thelawpermittedthejurytodrawinferencesfromtheevidence%  presentedattrialregardingtheshootingin_Clausell_'sbedroom.From @  otherStateevidence,thejurycouldeasilyinfer_Clausell_Ԁpulledthetrigger.Further,allof_Clausell_'sactionsandstatementsaftertheshootingpointssquarelytohisconsciousnessofguiltandhiseffortstoconcealthecrime._Clausell_wronglyassertsthattosustainaconvictiontheStatemustestablishmotiveandflightwhicharenotelementsofthecrime.    #~%~8#~~Statev. ! _Billedeaux_,2001MT9,304Mont.89,18P.3d990(BigHorn). 8  Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Followingajurytrial,_Billedeaux_Ԁwasconvictedof P deliberatehomicide(felonymurder).Heappealedhisconviction,alleginginpartthatthedistrictcourtimproperlydeniedhismotionforadirectedverdict.The 0 Courtheldthatthedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenying_Billedeaux_smotionforadirectedverdictonthefelonymurdercountbecausetheStatepresentedevidencethat_Billedeaux_Ԁcommittedtheforciblefelonyoffelonyassaultandthevictimsdeathwascausedduringtheattack,eitherby_Billedeaux_orbyoneofhiscohorts.    #~~># ~~_ # _Statev._Haser_,2001MT6,304Mont.63,20P.3d100(Missoula).Affirmedin ( part,reversedinpart;Nelson,J. _Haser_Ԁownedaphotographystudioin @ Missoulaandwasaccusedofsexuallytouchinghismodelsundertheguiseof Itsallforthephotos.Ajuryconvictedhimofsexualassaultwithregardtoseveralvictimsandofsexualintercoursewithoutconsentwithregardtotwoofthevictims.  Onappeal,theCourtheldthattheevidencepresentedattrialwassufficientforarationaltrieroffacttofindthat_Haser_Ԁ committedtheessentialelementofsexualintercoursewiththevictimsbeyondareasonabledoubt.However,theCourtfoundthatneither_definitionof withoutconsent_providedbyMont.CodeAnn. % 455501(1),whichisexpresslyapplicabletotheoffenseofsexualintercoursewithoutconsent,wassatisfiedinthiscase.Pursuanttothestatutorydefinition,theStatehadtoprovethateitherthevictimwascompelledtosubmitbyforceagainstthevictimoranotherorthatthevictimwasincapableofconsentbecauseshewasmentallydefectiveorincapacitatedorphysicallyhelpless. (-x(%   TheCourtrejectedtheStatesargumentthatforceshouldincludeconstructiveforce,statingthatMontanasstatutoryschemeaccountsfortheconceptofconstructiveforcebyincludingthreatsofbodilyinjuryorsubstantialretaliatoryaction.TheCourtheldthat [_m]ere_Ԁchicanerysimplycannotbeconstruedasaformofforceunderourgoverningstatutes.TheCourtconcludedthat_Haser_Ԁdidnotuseforceincompellinghisvictimstosubmittosexualintercourse.TheCourtalsodeclinedtoequatesurprisewithforce,holdingthatunderMontanalaw,forcemustberelatedtobodilyinjury,theattemptedinflictionofbodilyinjury,oranactualthreatofsomekind.  TheCourtalsorejectedtheStatesargumentthatimplicitinthedefinitionof incapableofconsentisthenotionthatthevictimmusthaveanopportunity_toconsentortocommunicatealack_Ԁofconsent.TheCourtnotedtheonlyviableargumentthatthevictimswereincapableofconsentwastheywere physicallyhelpless.Mont.CodeAnn. ' 455501(1)(b)(ii).TheCourtfoundthatthevictimswereawakeandsoberandthereforeconsciousandcapabletocommunicatealackofconsent.TheCourtheldthatitwasnotatlibertytoreadimplicitnotionsof opportunitytoconsentor awakeandsoberbutunawareintothestatutorydefinitionof incapableofconsent.̀#~~B# %~~ ` State_v._Ԁ  Scarborough,2000MT301,302Mont.350,#~%~M#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1202(Lake). x Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Oncrossexamination,defenseexpertSusan  _Sachsenmaier_Ԁwasbeingargumentativewiththecourtandtheprosecutor,avoideddirectquestions,andattemptedtotestifyaboutScarboroughsallegedhallucinations.Thedistrictcourtinstructedhertoansweronlythequestionsaskedofher sowecanfinishsometime.Later,followingafurtherexchangebetweentheprosecutorand_Sachsenmaier_,defensecounselobjectedthattheprosecutorwasbeing argumentativewiththewitness.Thedistrictcourtoverruled,noting [_i]t_isargumentative,butthewitnessisbeingmostdifficult.Onappeal,Scarboroughclaimedthedistrictcourtsstatementswereimpropercommentsonthecredibilityofthewitness.Becausetherewasnoobjectionbelow,theSupremeCourtfoundtheclaimtobewaived.TheCourtalsofoundnobasisintherecordtoapplythecommonlawplainerrorreview.#~%~N# %~~_ ) _Statev._Flatley_,2000MT295,302Mont.314,14P.3d1195(Jefferson). ($! Reversed;Trieweiler,J. AlanRealwasenlistedbytheSouthwestMontanaDrug )0%" TaskForcetoarrangeadrugpurchasewithRichard_Flatley_.Realwentto_Flatley_shouseandasked_Flatley_Ԁifhecould hook[him]up?_Flatley_Ԁsaid, No,theguysgonefishing._Flatley_sfriend,_Janacaro_,thentoldRealthathe (-x(% knewwheretogetsomemarijuana.Theyalldrovetoaplacewhere_Janacaro_believedRealcouldpurchasedrugsfromaguynamedJones._Flatley_Ԁstayedinthecarwhilethetransactionoccurred.AsaresultofthetransactionandtheevidenceobtainedfromRealsbodywire,_Flatley_Ԁwaschargedwithandconvictedofcriminaldistributionofdangerousdrugsbyaccountability.Apersoncommitsthatoffensewhenhepromotesorfacilitatesasale,barter,exchange,giveaway,oroffertoselldangerousdrugs.TheSupremeCourtreversed_Flatley_sconvictionbecausetherewasnoevidencethat_Flatley_ԀintendedtofacilitateatransactionbetweenRealandJones.Rather,theevidenceshowedthat_Flatley_ԀintendedtoconnectRealwiththepersonwhohadgonefishing.Therewasnoevidencethat_Flatley_ԀdiscussedthetransactionwithJonesorwaspresentwhenittookplace.Merepresenceisinsufficienttoproveaccountability. #~%~2S#%~~Statev. * _Flatley_,2000MT295,302Mont.314,#~%~Z#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1195(Jefferson). 8  Reversed;Trieweiler,J. #~%~[#%~~ԀMerepressureisinsufficienttoproveaccountability. P SeeVI.E,infra. h #~%~\# %~~Statev. + Brady,2000MT282,___State_Rptr_.___,13P.3d941(Missoula). H Affirmed;Hunt,J. ArchieGalenBrady,drivingaloneonMontana200between ` _Seeley_ԀLakeandMissoula,swerved,lefttheroad,struckarockwall,androlledover.Atruckdriversawhimdrivingfastanderraticallyjustbeforetheaccident.LawenforcementofficersarrivedafterBradyhadleft,buttheyfoundhiswallet,whichcontainedhisexpireddriverslicense.Bradyslicensehadbeensuspendedearlier.AfteralawenforcementinterviewatBradyshome,hewaschargedwithfelonyDUIandthreemisdemeanors:_driving_Ԁwhilesuspended,failuretoprovideproofofinsurance,andfailuretogivenoticeoftheaccident.  Bradyarguedthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionwhenitdidnotdismissthecasesuasponteforinsufficiencyoftheevidence.TheCourtheldtherewassufficientevidence,evenifitwascircumstantial,forthejurytohavedeterminedguilt,notingtestimonyonhiserraticdrivingbeforethewreck,physicalevidencegatheredatthewrecksite,suchasskidmarks,andofficerstestimonyonBradysconductathishomewhenquestioned. #~%~\# %~~ State_v._Ԁ , Baker,2000MT235,301Mont.323,8P.3d817(Sheridan).Affirmed; ($! Gray,J. Bakerwasconvictedofsexualassaultingasevenyearoldgirl.The )0%" districtcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingBakersmotionforadirectedverdict._Baker_ԀarguedthattheStatefailedtoprovetheelementthatthevictimwaslessthansixteenyearsoldandhewasthreeormoreyearsolderthanthevictim. (-x(% Theagefactorsinthesexualassaultstatutepertainonlytosentencingapersonconvictedofsexualassaultand,asaresult,theoffendersageinrelationtothatofthevictimisnotanelementoftheoffense.#~%~gb# %~~ . State_v._ԀFey,2000MT211,301Mont.28,7P.3d358(_Toole_).Affirmed;  ` Leaphart,J. #~%~e#~~ԀFeysdrunkdrivingresultedinarollovercrashonadirtroadthat ( x killedoneofhispassengers.BeforeFeyranforhelp,heinstructedhisbuddytohidethebeerandwhiskey.Hewaschargedwithandconvictedof(amongotherthings)conspiracytoobstructjustice.Onappeal,heclaimedtherewasinsufficientevidencetocorroboratethetestimonyoftheaccomplice(Feysbuddy)whohidtheboozeoutinthefield.However,afewdaysafterthecrash,Feyreturnedtothecrashsiteandwalkedintothefieldwheretheboozehadbeendiscovered.Heclaimedhe sawsomethingoutthereanditlookedinteresting,buttheStatecontendedhewasreallylookingfortheboozetodisposeofforgood.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthisevidence,whilepossiblyconsistentwithinnocentconduct,wassufficientsinceitwasuptothejurytoweightheevidenceanddeterminethecredibilityofthewitnesses.#~~f# %~~ 0 State_v._ԀTaylor,2000MT202,300Mont.499,5P.3d1019(Garfield). ` Affirmed,remandedinpart;Trieweiler,J. Inearly1994,the_Taylors_ x participatedwithotherFreemenintakingovertheGarfieldCountycourtroomtosetup"theirownsupremecourtofGarfieldCounty."The_Taylors_Ԁactedasersatz"JusticeofthePeace,""commonlawwitness,"and"JuratinLaw,"andappliedtheirsignaturestothesetitlesonvariousdocumentsthattheFreemenpurportedtofileintheirmakebelievecourt.The_Taylors_Ԁwereconvictedinthestatedistrictcourtofimpersonatingapublicservantandimpersonatingapublicservantbyaccountability.TheSupremeCourtheldsufficientevidencesupportsKarenTaylor'sconvictionontheaccountabilitycharge.Thestatutedidnotrequirethatthe_Taylors_Ԁpretendtoholdspecificpositionsaspublicservantstobeguiltyoffalseimpersonation.%XjX%~ h$ #XjXX%Xjj##~XXj)o# %~~State_v._Ԁ 1 Davis,2000MT199,300Mont.450,5P.3d547(Missoula).Affirmed; &! Trieweiler,J. Sufficiencyofevidenceinnegligenthomicideprosecution. '#  SeeVI.A.9. ($! #~%~o# %~~%XjX%~  )0%" #XjXX%Xjq##~XXj.q# %~~>*?*Q*T*State_v._Ԁ  Duffy,2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453(_Stillwater_).  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Duffywasconvictedoftwocountsofsexual  intercoursewithoutconsentandtwocountsofincest.TherewassufficientevidencetosustaintheconvictionsofsexualintercoursewithoutconsenteventhoughthevictimtestifiedthatDuffyspenisnevertouchedherlipsortongue,whenthevictimdidtestifythatDuffyspeniswasinhermouth.Penetrationofthevictimsmouth,howeverslight,wassufficient.#~%~q# %~~ 3 State_v._ԀJohnson(Aaron),2000MT180,300Mont.367,4P.3d654(Cascade). p  Affirmed;Hunt,J. Inthiscaseinvolvingthesaleofdangerousdrugstoa   confidentialinformant(CI),Johnsonclaimedonappealthatthedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretionwhenitsustainedtheprosecutor'sobjectionstotwoquestionsheposedtotheCIrelatingtohernonpaymentoftaxeson$60sheearnedwhileactingastheCI.Heclaimedtherulings_prevented_ԀhimfromattackingthecredibilityoftheCIandthelawenforcementofficersinvolvedinthecase.TheSupremeCourtdeclinedtodeterminewhetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionbecausetherewasnopossibleprejudiceresultingfromtherulings;_his_ԀdefensetheoryadmittedthefactsofthedrugsalesastestifiedtobytheCIandtheofficers.#~%~t#    ` 10.0 PriorTestimonyx (# (# %~~_ 5 _Stateexrel._Mazurek_Ԁv.DistrictCourt(Ingraham),2000MT266,302Mont.39,  22P.3d166(Lake).Reversed;Gray,J. Ingrahamwasconvictedofnegligent  homicide,criminalendangerment,andcriminaltrespassasaresultofafatalaccidentwherebloodtestsshowedIngrahamhadalcoholandprescription_meds_Ԁinhissystem.Onappeal,theSupremeCourtvacatedthejudgmentandremandedforanewtrialholdingthat_itprejudicial_ԀerrorfortheStatetointroduceevidenceregardingtheprescriptiondrugsbecausetherewasnoshownnexusbetweenthemedication,thealcohol,andtheaccident.  On_retrial_,IngrahamsoughttoprecludetheStatesuseofhispriortestimonyregardingtheprescriptiondrugs.ThedistrictcourtruledinfavorofIngrahamonthebasisofMont.CodeAnn. 6 4616701( thegrantingofanewtrialplacesthepartiesinthesamepositionasiftherehadbeennotrial.)TheStatepetitionedforsupervisorycontrolandtheSupremeCourtreversedthetrialcourtsruling,holdingthatthestatuteshouldnotbeconstruedinsuchamannerastoconflictwiththerulesofevidence,whichwouldotherwiseauthorizetheuseofthepriortestimony. (-x(%   TheSupremeCourtalsorejectedIngrahamsargumentthatuseofhispriortestimonywouldconstitutea 8 FifthAmendmentviolationbecausehewas compelledtotestifyinresponsetotheStatesimproperuseofthedrugevidence.TheCourtfollowedtheanalysisof : Harrison_v._ԀUnitedStates, H 392U.S.219(1968)andheldthataFifthAmendmentviolationoccursonlywhen  ` theStateuses constitutionally infirmevidenceagainstthedefendant.Here,the ( x courtwasdealingwithan evidentiary infirmity,thereisno fruitofthepoisonous @  treeproblem. #~%~y#   B. ` OffensesAgainstthePerson        `  1. Homicide     %~~ Statev.  Martin(a/k/aJamesGeneTrujillo),2001MT83,___State_Rptr_.___, 8  ___P.3d___(Missoula).Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Gray,C.J.  P Theexistenceofamentalstatein_anattempteddeliberatehomicideprosecution_maybeinferredfromconductandsurroundingcircumstances.Thereisnorequirement thatthecriminalactbecarefullythoughtout,plannedwellinadvance,orwise.17.SeeVI.A.9. ` #~%~ӂ#%~~ Statev.  _Clausell_,2001MT62,305Mont.1,___P.3d___(Yellowstone).  Affirmed;Nelson,J. Jurymaydrawinferencesfromevidenceinahomicide  trial.Stateisnotrequiredtoprovemotiveorflight,whicharenotelementsofcrime.#~%~d# %~~ Statev. < Enright/Link,2000MT372,57State_Rptr_.1590,16P.3d366  X (JudithBasin).Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Followingthereversaloftheirseparate  !p convictions,EnrightandLinkweretriedtogetherinaconsolidatedtrialandconvictedagainofarsonandhomicidecharges.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthetrialswereproperlyconsolidated,despitethefactthatsomeoftheevidencemayhavebeenrelevantonlytothechargesagainstoneofthedefendants.LinkfailedtochallengetheadmissibilityofaletterwrittenbyEnrightonconfrontationgroundsandtherebywaivedtheissueforpurposesofappeal.Theevidencewassufficienttosupporttheconvictions. (-x(% >*  >  >   State_v._Ԁ 1 Davis,2000MT199,300Mont.450,5P.3d547(Missoula).Affirmed;  Trieweiler,J. Daviswasconvictedofnegligenthomicideafterhehitawoman  onVanBuren_street_ԀwithhisJeepCherokee.Priortohittingthevictim,Davishad_had_Ԁninedrinks.Despitethefactthatthevictimweighed250poundsandlandedonthehoodofDavisjeep,Davisthoughthehadhitadeeranddidnotremainatthescene.TheStatewasunabletopresentevidenceofDavisBACatthetimeofthecollisionbecauseofhisflight.Awitnessalsotestifiedthatpriortothecollision,DavisJeepdriftedtowardsthevictim.DavisarguedthattheStatepresentedinsufficientevidenceatthecloseofitscaseinchiefthathewasguiltyofnegligenthomicide.TheCourtdisagreed.TheCourtheldthat thejurycouldreasonablyhavefoundfromtheevidencepresentedthatDavisconsciouslydisregardedtheriskposedbyhisdrivingundertheinfluenceofalcohol,andthathisconductimmediatelybefore,during,andaftertheaccidentrevealsagrossdeviationfromthestandardofconductthatareasonableperson,notundertheinfluenceofalcohol,wouldhaveobserved.#~%~#    `  2. Assault/RelatedOffenses   0  %~~ Statev.  Martin(a/k/aJamesGeneTrujillo),2001MT83,___State_Rptr_.___, ` ___P.3d___(Missoula).Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Gray,C.J.  x Sufficiencyofevidenceforfelonyassault.SeeVI.A.9.  #~%~g#    `  3. SexualCrimes    ~~  #~~i#8 ~~Statev. = _Haser_,2001MT6,304Mont.63,20P.3d100(Missoula).Affirmedin @ part,reversedinpart;Nelson,J. _Haser_ԀownedaphotographystudioinMissoula  X andwasaccusedofsexuallytouchinghismodelsundertheguiseof Itsallforthephotos.Ajuryconvictedhimofsexualassaultwithregardtoseveralvictimsandofsexualintercoursewithoutconsentwithregardtotwoofthevictims.  Onappeal,theCourtheldthattheevidencepresentedattrialwassufficientforarationaltrieroffacttofindthat_Haser_Ԁ committedtheessentialelementofsexualintercoursewiththevictimsbeyondareasonabledoubt.However,theCourtfoundthatneither_definitionof withoutconsent_providedbyMont.CodeAnn.455501(1),whichisexpresslyapplicabletotheoffenseofsexualintercoursewi @ thoutconsent,wassatisfiedinthiscase.Pursuanttothestatutorydefinition,theStatehadtoprovethateitherthevictimwascompelledtosubmitbyforceagainstthevictimoranotherorthatthevictimwasincapableofconsentbecauseshewasmentallydefectiveorincapacitatedorphysicallyhelpless. (-x(% ?*! ?  ?  8  TheCourtrejectedtheStatesargumentthatforceshouldincludeconstructiveforce,statingthatMontanasstatutoryschemeaccountsfortheconceptofconstructiveforcebyincludingthreatsofbodilyinjuryorsubstantialretaliatoryaction.TheCourtheldthat [_m]ere_Ԁchicanerysimplycannotbeconstruedasaformofforceunderourgoverningstatutes.TheCourtconcludedthat_Haser_Ԁdidnotuseforceincompellinghisvictimstosubmittosexualintercourse.TheCourtalsodeclinedtoequatesurprisewithforce,holdingthatunderMontanalaw,forcemustberelatedtobodilyinjury,theattemptedinflictionofbodilyinjury,oranactualthreatofsomekind.  TheCourtalsorejectedtheStatesargumentthatimplicitinthedefinitionof incapableofconsentisthenotionthatthevictimmusthaveanopportunity_toconsentortocommunicatealack_Ԁofconsent.TheCourtnotedtheonlyviableargumentthatthevictimswereincapableofconsentwastheywere physicallyhelpless.Mont.CodeAnn. A 455501(1)(b)(ii).TheCourtfoundthatthevictimswereawakeandsoberandthereforeconsciousandcapabletocommunicatealackofconsent.TheCourtheldthatitwasnotatlibertytoreadimplicitnotionsof opportunitytoconsentor awakeandsoberbutunawareintothestatutorydefinitionof incapableofconsent.#~~ϒ#%~~ State_v._Ԁ , Baker,2000MT235,301Mont.323,8P.3d817(Sheridan).Affirmed; x Gray,J. Sufficiencyofevidenceforsexualassault.SeeVI.A.9.   #~%~ߞ#%~~State_v._Ԁ  Duffy,2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453(_Stillwater_).  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Duffywasconvictedoftwocountsofsexual ( intercoursewithoutconsentandtwocountsofincest.Onappeal,Duffyarguedthatthedistrictcourterredwhenitconductedanincamerainspectionofthevictimsconfidentialrecords,butdenieddefensecounseltheopportunitytopersonallyreviewrecords.ThecourtsincamerainspectionproperlybalancedDuffysrighttodiscoverexculpatoryevidencewiththevictimsrighttoprotectherconfidentialrecords. #~%~ #   `  4. Other ; &! %~~Statev. B _Zeltner_,2000MT319,302Mont.504,15P.3d384(Gallatin). ($! Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Sufficiencyofevidenceforchargesoffailuretoremain )0%" atthesceneofaninjuryaccidentandfailuretogivenoticeofanaccidentbythequickestmeans.SeeVI.A.9.#~%~#  ,`'$  (-x(% Q*" Q  Q     C. ` OffensesAgainstProperty      `  1. CriminalTrespass/Burglary 3 0 %~~Statev.  Martin(a/k/aJamesGeneTrujillo),2001MT83,___State_Rptr_.___,  ` ___P.3d___(Missoula).Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Gray,C.J.  ( x Sufficiencyofevidenceforaggravatedburglary.SeeVI.A.9. @  #~%~#    `  2. Theft/RelatedOffenses ? p   %~~ Statev.Martin(a/k/aJamesGeneTrujillo),2001MT83,___State_Rptr_.___,   ___P.3d___(Missoula).Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Gray,C.J.    Sufficiencyofevidenceforfelonytheft.SeeVI.A.9.    #~%~#   D. ` DUI - P 8%~~_ D _CityofMissoulav._Fergunson_,2001MT69,305Mont.36,22P.3d198 0 (Missoula).Affirmed;Cotter,J. _Fergunson_ԀpledguiltyinMissoulaMunicipal H Courttodrivingundertheinfluenceofalcoholandoperatingamotorvehiclethewrongwayonaonewaystreet,reservinghisrighttoappealthedenialofhismotiontosuppresstheevidencefromhisbreathtest.FergusonarguedthatbecausehehadanIowadriverslicensetheimpliedconsentadvisoryformreadtohimmisstatedthelawand,therefore,hewasunlawfullycoercedintotakingthebreathtest.Thedistrictcourtaffirmedthemunicipalcourt,and_Fergunson_ԀappealedtotheSupremeCourt.Relyingonitsrecentdecisionin x Statev.Simmons,2000MT329, @ ___Mont.___,15P.3d408,theSupremeCourtrejected_Fergunson_sclaimthathewasmisledorunlawfullycoercedintotakingthebreathtest.#~%~# %~~ _ { _Statev._Morigeau_,2000MT177N(UNPUBLISHED)(Lake).Affirmed P# (stateappeal);Leaphart,J. _Morigeau_Ԁarguedshecouldnotbechargedwith h$ fourthoffenseDUIbecauseoneofherpriorconvictionswasobtainedwithoutthe %  benefitofcounsel.ShearguedthatthecourtinthepriorproceedingshouldhaveappointedcounselunderMont.CodeAnn. } 468101(3)(b)becausethejudge,byincarceratingheronhomearrest,retainedimprisonmentasasentencingoption.ThedistrictcourtagreedanddismissedthefelonyDUIcharge.TheStateappealed,arguingthathomearrestisnotactualimprisonment,butonlyathreatofimprisonment,sothatcounselwasnotrequired.TheSupremeCourtdisagreedwithoutdecidingwhetherhomearrestwas actualimprisonment. (-x(% T*# T  T  Becausethejusticecourtimposedatwentydayperiodofincarceration,butgavethedefendanttheoptionofservingthatsentenceonhomearrest,homearrestwasan alternateform ofimprisonment,andappointmentofcounselwouldhavebeen 0 requiredtoimposethatsentence.Withouttheappointmentofcounsel,_Morigeau_spriorconvictioncouldnotbeusedtoconvertasubsequentDUItoafelony. #~%~<#8%~~_  _Statev._Schwein_,2000MT371,57State_Rptr_.1587,16P.3d373 @  (Yellowstone).Affirmed;Leaphart,J. _Schwein_ԀwasarrestedforDUIafterhe X  wasfoundasleepinthedriversseatofhiscar,whichwasparkedinaparkinglotbetweenabarandabusinesswhich_Schwein_Ԁowned.TheSupremeCourtheldthattheparkinglotwasa wayofthestateopentothepublic,eventhoughtheparkingspacewasinfrontof_Schwein_sownbusiness.Inaddition,thedistrictcourtproperlydenied_Schwein_smotionforamistrial,baseduponthecourtsreferenceinitspreliminaryinstructionstothefactthattheDUIchargewasafelony,becausetheobjectiontothereferencecametoolateand_Schwein_sownattorneyhadalsoreferredtothefelonynatureofthecharge. #~%~#   E. ` Accountability 1 H  %~~ Statev. * _Flatley_,2000MT295,302Mont.314,#~%~#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1195(Jefferson). x Reversed;Trieweiler,J. AlanRealwasenlistedbytheSouthwestMontana  DrugTaskForcetoarrangeadrugpurchasewithRichard_Flatley_.Realwentto_Flatley_shouseandasked_Flatley_Ԁifhecould hook[him]up?_Flatley_Ԁsaid, No,theguysgonefishing._Flatley_sfriend,_Janacaro_,thentoldRealthatheknewwheretogetsomemarijuana.Theyalldrovetoaplacewhere_Janacaro_ԀbelievedRealcouldpurchasedrugsfromaguynamedJones._Flatley_Ԁstayedinthecarwhilethetransactionoccurred.AsaresultofthetransactionandtheevidenceobtainedfromRealsbodywire,_Flatley_Ԁwaschargedwithandconvictedofcriminaldistributionofdangerousdrugsbyaccountability.Apersoncommitsthatoffensewhenhepromotesorfacilitatesasale,barter,exchange,giveaway,oroffertoselldangerousdrugs.TheSupremeCourtreversed_Flatley_sconvictionbecausetherewasnoevidencethat_Flatley_ԀintendedtofacilitateatransactionbetweenRealandJones.Rather,theevidenceshowedthat_Flatley_ԀintendedtoconnectRealwiththepersonwhohadgonefishing.Therewasnoevidencethat_Flatley_ԀdiscussedthetransactionwithJonesorwaspresentwhenittookplace.Merepresenceisinsufficienttoproveaccountability.#~%~)#  ,`'$    F. ` JuryIssues p     `  1. JuryConduct/Deliberations  0  %~~ _  _State_v._ԀMarker,2000MT303,302Mont.380,15P.3d373(Jefferson)(state  ` appeal).Reversed;Leaphart,J. Markerwaschargedwithaggravatedassault ( x forhisparticipationinabarroombrawl.Followingtrial,thejurywasgiventheoptionofconvictingMarkerofaggravatedassaultbyaccountabilityormisdemeanorassault.ThejuryconvictedMarkerofaggravatedassaultbyaccountability.Inreachingitsverdict,however,thejurorsappearedtohavebeenconfusedbythejuryverdictform,andthedistrictcourtorderedaspecialpostverdictsurveytodeterminewhetherthatwasinfactthecase.Asaresultofthatsurvey,whichwasnotmadepartoftherecord,thedistrictcourtsetasidetheverdictandgrantedanewtrial.TheStateappealed,arguingthattheverdictformwasaproperstatementofthelawandthatthecourtimproperlyreliedonthepostverdictsurveyinviolationof F Mont.R.Evid.606(b).AmajorityoftheSupremeCourtagreed.JusticesHuntandTrieweilerdissented,concludingthatthejurorsconfusionwasapparentfromtheverdictformitself,andthatthedistrictcourtsconsiderationofthespecialpostverdictformwasinconsequential. #~%~3#   `  2. Instructions   %~~State_v._Ԁ  Scarborough,2000MT301,302Mont.350,#~%~#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1202(Lake).  Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Scarboroughwaschargedwithdeliberatehomicideand ( attempteddeliberatehomicide,butthejurywaserroneouslyinstructedthatitmustfindhimnotguiltyofthoseoffensesbeforemovingontoconsidertheaffirmativedefensesofmitigateddeliberatehomicideandattemptedmitigateddeliberatehomicide(thesocalled acquittalfirstinstruction).TheSupremeCourtaffirmedtheconvictions,however.TheCourtfoundtheinstructionharmlessbecauseScarboroughhadnotmethisburdenofproofthatheactedunderextremementaloremotionalstress. #~%~#%~~ _  _Statev. G _Fuqua_,2000MT273,302Mont.99,13P.3d34(Lake).Affirmed; '#  Leaphart,J. Thetrialcourtdidnoterrinrefusingtogivethedefendants ($! proposedstandaloneinstructiondefining negligentlywhenthecrimechargedassaultonapoliceofficerrequiredaknowingorpurposefulmentalstate,andthedefendantwasnotpreventedfromarguingthatheactednegligently,ratherthanknowinglyorpurposely.  (-x(% #~%~# %~~Statev. H Taylor,2000MT202,300Mont.499,5P.3d1019(Garfield).  Affirmedandremandedinpart;Trieweiler,J. Inearly1994,the_Taylors_  participatedwithotherFreemenintakingovertheGarfieldCountycourtroomtosetup"theirownsupremecourtofGarfieldCounty."The_Taylors_Ԁactedasersatz"JusticeofthePeace,""commonlawwitness,"and"JuratinLaw,"andappliedtheirsignaturestothesetitlesonvariousdocumentsthattheFreemenpurportedtofileintheirmakebelievecourt.The_Taylors_Ԁwereconvictedinthestatedistrictcourtofimpersonatingapublicservantandimpersonatingapublicservantbyaccountability.Onappeal,theSupremeCourtheldthatthetrialcourtcorrectlyinstructedthejuryontheimpersonatingapublicservantstatuteandrefusedthe_Taylors_'proposedinstruction.Thestatutedoesnotincludelanguagerequiringthatapersonmustfalselypretendtoholdaspecificpositioninthepublicservice.Neitheristhestatuteunconstitutionallyvaguesinceitclearlysetsforththatanyonewhopretendstoholdapositioninthepublicservicewiththepurposetoinduceanothertosubmittothatauthorityorwhichcausesanothertorelyuponthatpretensetohisbenefit,iswithintheconductproscribedbythestatute.BecausetheCourtcouldnotreviewthe_Taylors_'speedytrialassertion,theCourtremandedthecaseforfurtherfactualdevelopment.#~%~>#  H  %~~   State_v._Ԁ 1 Davis,2000MT199,300Mont.450,5P.3d547(Missoula).Affirmed; x Trieweiler,J. Thejurywasinstructedontheissueofflight.Citing  State_v._Ԁ I Hall,  1999MT297,297Mont.111,991P.2d929,Davisarguedthattheflightinstructionwasimproperbecauseitwasanunnecessarycommentontheevidencebythedistrictcourt.InHall,theCourtheldthatflightinstructionsshouldno ( longerbegivenbecausetheyareunnecessarycommentsontheevidence.Here,theCourtrejectedDavissclaimbecause,whileheobjectedtotheflightinstruction,hedidnotdosoonthegroundsthatitwasanimpropercommentontheevidence.TheCourtheldthatDavisslackofaspecificobjectionresultedinhiswaivingappellatereviewofhisflightinstructionclaim.  TheCourtalsoheldthattheinstructiononflightwasnotprejudicialbecausetherewassufficientevidencethatflighthadtakenplaceandbecausethejuryinstructioncontainedthequalificationthatflightitselfwasnotsufficientevidenceofguilt.TheCourtaddressedtheprejudiceissue inanticipationofaclaimthatcounselwasineffectivefornotmakingtheproperobjection. ($! #~%~#  )0%" *VXgW}   G. ` LesserIncludedOffenses 6  ~~#~~#%~~Statev.    Martin(a/k/aJamesGeneTrujillo),2001MT83,___State_Rptr_.___, 0 ___P.3d___(Missoula).Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Gray,C.J.  H Martinattemptedtocashastolencheckatabank.Theteller,recognizinghimfromanearlierincident,stalledhimwhilehercolleaguescalledthepolice.Martinfledfromthebankwhenhesawanofficercomingonfoot.TheofficeryelledforMartintostopandchasedhimacrossastreetintoaparkinglot,whereMartinturnedandfiredtwice.Abulletstrucktheofficersspine,permanentlyparalyzinghimfromtheneckdown.  TheCourtupheldthetrialcourtsrefusaltoinstructthejuryonassaultonapoliceofficerasalesserincludedoffenseofattempteddeliberatehomicide.Itconcluded  State_v._Ԁ f Castle,285Mont.363,948P.2d688(1997)wasinapplicable.   Assaultonapeaceofficerisnotalesserincludedoffensebecauseitrequiresproofofanadditionalfactnotnecessaryforattempteddeliberatehomicidethatthevictimisapoliceofficer.26.#~%~#%~~  TheCourtalsoupheldthetrialcourtsrefusaltoinstructthejuryonthe 0 lesserincludedoffenseofmitigatedattempteddeliberatehomicide.Martinclaimedthattheevidenceofsurprise,shock,andpaniconhisfaceafterheshottheofficer,aswellasevidencethatheandhispregnantgirlfriendwerehomelessandunemployed,requiredthatthequestionofwhetherheactedunderextremementaloremotionalstressbesubmittedtothejury.TheCourtagreedwiththedistrictcourtthattheevidencedidnotrisetothelevelofextremementaloremotionaldistressforwhichtherewasareasonableexplanationorexcuse.Itcited  Hans_v._ ( State,283Mont.379,399,942P.2d674,686(1997),whichrequired evidenceof @ anextremeemotionalstressresultingfromprovocationofsomesort,intheformofareasonableexcuseorexplanation.33.#~%~#~~ _  _Statev._Billedeaux_,2001MT9,304Mont.89,18P.3d990(BigHorn). P# Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Followingajurytrial,_Billedeaux_Ԁwasconvictedof h$ deliberatehomicide(felonymurder).Heappealedhisconviction,alleginginpartthatthedistrictcourtimproperlyinstructedthejury._Billedeaux_Ԁarguedthathewasentitledtoaninstructiononthelesserincludedoffenseofmisdemeanorassault.TheCourtagreedwiththeStatethat_Billedeaux_Ԁdidnotraisethisissueattrialbyfailingtorequesttheinstructionandfailingtoobjecttoitsomissionwhenthedistrictcourtaskedforobjectionstothejuryinstructions.TheCourtheldthatthecourthadnodutytoinstructthejuryonmisdemeanorassault,absentsucharequest. (-x(% *'     #~~# %~~State_v._Ԁ  Scarborough,2000MT301,302Mont.350,#~%~#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1202(Lake).  Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Scarboroughwaschargedwithdeliberatehomicideand  attempteddeliberatehomicide,butthejurywaserroneouslyinstructedthatitmustfindhimnotguiltyofthoseoffensesbeforemovingontoconsidertheaffirmativedefensesofmitigateddeliberatehomicideandattemptedmitigateddeliberatehomicide(thesocalled acquittalfirstinstruction).TheSupremeCourtaffirmedtheconvictions,however.TheCourtfoundtheinstructionharmlessbecauseScarboroughhadnotmethisburdenofproofthatheactedunderextremementaloremotionalstress.#~%~-#%~~ Statev. G _Fuqua_,2000MT273,302Mont.99,#~%~#%~~Ԁ13P.3d34(Lake).Affirmed;   Leaphart,J. Sincenegligentendangermentisnotalesserincludedoffenseof   assaultonapoliceofficer,underanyofthethreeprovisionsof K 46-1-202(8),theCourtneednotdetermineinthiscasetheconstitutionalityof M 452210(4),i.e.,whetherthelegislaturecanspecificallyeliminateconsiderationofanoffenseasalesserincludedoffense,whenitwouldotherwisefitwithinthedefinitionofalesserincludedoffenseunder461202(8). 򀀀  0 #~%~#    H. ` ConductofProsecutor K ` %~~Statev.  _Clausell_,2001MT62,305Mont.1,___P.3d___(Yellowstone).  Affirmed;Nelson,J. _Clausell_Ԁattrialsoughttodrawattentiontohiscooperation  withthepoliceafterhewasarrestedandMirandized.Onappeal,heclaimedthattheprosecutor'scommentsandtheelicitedtestimonyregardinghispostMirandacommentsviolatedhisrighttodueprocessandhisprivilegeagainstselfincriminationunder N Doyle_v._ԀOhio,426U.S.610(1976).  TheState,however,did  X not 8Ԁusesilencetoimpeach_Clausell_'strialtestimony.Therecorddoesnotshow_Clausell_Ԁinvokedtherighttosilenceorthatheremainedsilentatall.HeinfactgavemultiplepreMirandaandpostMirandastatements,allofwhichwere P# inconsistentandallofwhichtheStateproperlyattacked.#~%~#  h$  %~~ Statev. O Stewart,2000MT379,57State_Rptr_.1615,16P.3d391(Missoula). &! Reversedandremanded;Nelson,J. (Regnier,J.,Hunt,J.,Leaphart,J., '#  concurring)(Gray,J.,concurringinpart,dissentinginpart).Stewartwasconvictedofattemptingtofraudulentlyobtaindangerousdrugs,afelony,inviolationof P 459104and106.Hehadthreeprescriptionsfromhisdoctor:_Percocet_,_Ultran_,anonnarcoticpainrelieveradjunctto_Percocet_,andSoma,amusclerelaxant.Hedividedtheprescriptionsbetweentwopharmacies. (-x(%  (Xg(   TRX3' DraftX3' White3' Draft3' WhiteT XTRX3' WhiteX3' Draft3' White3' Draft((T  X  Atone,hefilledthe_Percocet_Ԁand_Ultran_Ԁprescriptions,butthepharmacistnoted  thattheonefor_Percocet_Ԁhadbeenalteredfrom30tabletsto80,buttheRomannumeralsfor30, xxx,inparenthesesnexttotheArabicnumerals,werenotaltered.8   Attrial,theprosecutor,whohadnotlocatedtheSomaprescriptionform,  ` deducedfromthedefensesopeningstatementwhereithadbeenfilledandobtaineditoverthelunchhour.Ithadbeensimilarlyaltered.Theprosecutordidnotimmediatelydiscloseittodefensecounsel,waitinginsteadtoconfrontStewartwithitafterhehadtakenthestandtodenythathehadalteredthe_Percocet_prescription,claimingthatsomeoneelseinhishomewhohadaccesstotheformhadchangedit.TheCourtreversedonthisissue,pointingtothestatutorydutyfortheStatetodisclose allpapers,documents,photographs,ortangibleobjectsunderMont.CodeAnn. U 4615322(1)(d).ItalsoconsideredthechangeinthetenorofthecaseaftertheintroductionofthealteredSomaprescription,notingthattheprosecutormentionedtheSomaprescriptiontwelvetimesduringclosingargument,eventhoughStewarthadnotbeenchargedwithanycrimeconnectedtoit. #~%~M#8%~~Statev. O  O Stewart,2000MT379,57State_Rptr_.1615,16P.3d391(Missoula). H Reversedandremanded;Nelson,J. (Regnier,J.,Hunt,J.,Leaphart,J., ` concurring)(Gray,J.,concurringinpart,dissentinginpart).Stewartraisedtheplainerrorruleforseveralissuesforwhichtherewasnoobjectionattrial.TheprosecutorhadaskedStewartwhetherhehadcontactedanylawenforcementofficewhenhewasservedwiththecriminalcharge,andStewarthadansweredthathehadcontactedhisattorney,whichtheprosecutoremphasizedinclosing.TheCourtdeclinedtoaddressthisissueandthebalanceofStewartsargumentsundertheplainerrorrule,butitdiscussedsomeofthemas guidanceforthecourtinafurthertrialofthismatter.34.(Gray,J.,althoughconcurringonthegroundsforreversal,dissentedfromtheadvisoryportionofthemajorityopinion.)  Intheadvisoryportionoftheopinion,theCourtexaminedastorytheprosecutortoldthejuryaboutarapecasehehadprosecutedsomeyearsbefore.Ajuryhadapparentlytoldhimthatoneofthereasonstheydidntconvictontherapechargewasthattheprosecutionhadntprovedthevictimwasavirgin.HeaskedtheStewartpaneltofollowtheinstructionsandnottoaddtotheburdenoftheStateastherapecasejuryhad.Inhisclosing,hementionedtherapecaseagain,andhealso,indiscussingtheStatesburden,saidthatreasonabledoubtwasaburdentheStatesatisfiedeveryday,andwasareasonwhy weneedanewjailinMissoulaCountyaswellasanewprison.35.Thecourtsaidthat,whileitdidnotaddresstheseallegationsoferror,itnoted thatalthoughcounsel (-x(% W}) W  X W  maycommentontheburdenofproofasitrelatestofactspresentedintrial,itmaynotgooutsidetherecordormisrepresentthelawasinstructedbythejudge.40.  Theprosecutortoldthejuryaboutthe somedudedefense,reflectingonStewartstestimonythatsomeoneelsehadalteredtheprescription.HealsoassuredthejurythatStewartwouldgettreatmentevenifhewereconvicted.TheCourtadmonishedtheprosecution nottorefertotherapestory,theneedforanewjailinMissoulaCounty,the somedudedefense,ortomattersinvolvingsentencingineithervoirdire,theprosecutionsopening_statement_Ԁorclosingargument.45. p  #~%~w#%~~ State_v._Ԁ S Hart,2000MT332,___Mont.___,15P.3d917(Yellowstone).   Affirmedinpart,vacatedinpart;Regnier,J. Hartbrutallybeathisnieceabout   herfacewithastunguninherownhomeaftershetriedtodefendherfriendwhowasoffendedbyHartsoffensivecomment.Forthefirsttime,theCourtsquarelydealtwiththeissueofwhetheritiserrortoallowtheStatetoaskadefendantwhetherotherwitnesseswerelying.TheCourtheldthat werethey_lyingquestions_Ԁarenotcategoricallyimproper.Thedecisiontoallowthistypeofquestioninginanyparticularinstancerestswiththesounddiscretionofthedistrictcourt.TheCourtrefusedtoadoptabright-lineruleregardingtheproprietyofsuchquestioning.TheCourtsuggested,however,thatsuchquestioningwouldbeallowedinfactualsituationsinwhichtheonlyimportantdistinctionbetweenthedefendant'stestimonyandthevictim'stestimonyisthateachwitnessisclaimingthattheotheronecommittedtheact.Also,suchquestionshaveprobativevalueinclarifyingaparticularlineoftestimony,inevaluatingthecredibilityofadefendantwhoisclaimingthateveryoneelseislying,orwhenawitnessflatlydeniestheoccurrenceofevents.#~%~] #%~~  TheCourtrefusedtoinvoketheplainerrordoctrineandreviewthemerits  !p ofHart'sclaimthattheprosecutorimpermissiblycommentedthatHartexercisedhisrighttobepresentattrialwhichprovidedhimanopportunitytofabricatehistestimonybasedonthetestimonyoftheState'switnesses.TheCourtheldthatitwasnotatall"manifest"thatHart'sconvictionwastheresultoftheallegederror. Wewillcontinuetouseourinherentpowerofplainerrorreviewsparinglyandonlyinexceptionalcasesmeeting[_theFinley_]...criteria.TheCourthintedabouthowitmightrulehadtheobjectionbeenpreserved,stating, Althoughwehaveneverheldthatadefendant'srighttomeetadversewitnessesfacetofaceisimplicatedduringaprosecutor'sclosingarguments,itisconceivablethatanaccused'srighttofacetofaceconfrontationcouldbeburdenedbyallowingsummationcommentswhichnegativelyremarkontheaccused'spresenceduringthetestimonyofadversewitnesses. @.)& V* V  X V  #~%~# %~~State_v._Ԁ  Duffy,2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453(_Stillwater_).  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Duffywasconvictedoftwocountsofsexual  intercoursewithoutconsentandtwocountsofincest.ThedistrictcourtproperlyexerciseditsdiscretionwhenitdeniedDuffysmotionsfor_mistrial_Ԁbasedonprosecutorialmisconduct.Itwasproperfortheprosecutortodiscoverwherethevictimlivedatthetimeofoneofthecrimes,andtheprosecutorwasnotprohibitedfromdiscoveringfactstoaidtheminorvictimsrecollectionofwherethecrimeoccurred.ItwasalsoproperfortheprosecutortoelicittestimonyfromthevictimaboutwhyshewantedDuffyconvictedwhendefensecounselopenedthedoortothislineofquestioning.ThedistrictcourtproperlydeniedDuffysmotionformistrialbasedonassertionsthattheprosecutorviolatedanorderin_limine_.Thetestimonyobjectedtowasvoidofcontext,wasimmediatelystruckupon_objection_,andwasnotprejudicial.#~%~#    I. ` Mistrial  P %~~Statev. Y _Schwein_,2000MT371,57State_Rptr_.1587,16P.3d373 0 (Yellowstone).Affirmed;Leaphart,J. 󀀀Thedistrictcourtproperlydenied H _Schwein_smotionforamistrial,baseduponthecourtsreferenceinitspreliminaryinstructionstothefactthattheDUIchargewasafelony,becausetheobjectiontothereferencecametoolateand_Schwein_sownattorneyhadalsoreferredtothefelonynatureofthecharge. #~%~F#%~~State_v._Ԁ , Baker,2000MT235,301Mont.323,8P.3d817(Sheridan).Affirmed; ( Gray,J. Bakerwasconvictedofsexualassaultingasevenyearoldgirl.The @ districtcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenitdeniedBakersmotionforamistrialbasedonhisallegationthattheStatewithheldexculpatoryevidencebecauseiffailedtotellBakerthatduringthethirdinterviewofthevictimshealsodisclosedthatherfatherhadsexuallyabusedher.SinceBakeradmittedtolawenforcementthathesexuallyassaultedthevictim,thereisnoreasonableprobabilitythattheoutcomeofthetrialwouldhavebeendifferenthadtheStatedisclosedthethirdinterviewpriortotrial._Baker_Ԁfailedtoestablishthisinformationwasmaterialtohiscase.  ($!  #~%~#%~~State_v._Ԁ  Duffy,2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453(_Stillwater_).  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Duffywasconvictedoftwocountsofsexual  intercoursewithoutconsentandtwocountsofincest.ThedistrictcourtproperlyexerciseditsdiscretionwhenitdeniedDuffysmotionsformistrialbasedonprosecutorialmisconduct.Itwasproperfortheprosecutortodiscoverwherethevictimlivedatthetimeofoneofthecrimes,andtheprosecutorwasnotprohibitedfromdiscoveringfactstoaidtheminorvictimsrecollectionofwherethecrimeoccurred.ItwasalsoproperfortheprosecutortoelicittestimonyfromthevictimaboutwhyshewantedDuffyconvictedwhendefensecounselopenedthedoortothislineofquestioning.ThedistrictcourtproperlydeniedDuffysmotionformistrialbasedonassertionsthattheprosecutorviolatedanorderin_limine_.Thetestimonyobjectedtowasvoidofcontext,wasimmediatelystruckupon_objection_,andwasnotprejudicial.#~%~##    J.0 ` MotionsforContinuance (P` (#` (# %~~State_v._Ԁ , Baker,2000MT235,301Mont.323,8P.3d817(Sheridan).Affirmed; 0 Gray,J. Bakerwasconvictedofsexualassaultingasevenyearoldgirl.During H trial,Bakerrequestedacontinuancetoreviewatranscriptofthethirdinterviewofthevictim.ThecourtreservedrulingonthemotionuntiltheendoftheStatescaseinchief.Bakerfailedtoestablishwhy_acontinuance_Ԁwasnecessarywhenthecourtagreedtogivehimtimetoreviewthetranscript,Bakerfailedtoestablishwhatadditionalinformationhewouldhavepresentedhadthecourtgrantedacontinuance,Bakerhadtheopportunitytorecallanywitnessesafterhereviewedthetranscript,andaftertheStateresteditscase,Bakerdidnotrenewhismotionforacontinuance.#~%~)#   !p   4*Y*8   VII.  SENTENCING ,    %~~  [ State_v._ԀHubbel,2001MT31,304Mont.184,20P.3d111(Ravalli).Affirmed 0 inpart,remanded;Nelson,J. Thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin H requiring,asaconditionofpartialsuspensionofhissentenceupon_reconviction_,thatdefendantpaythecostsofhiscourtappointedcounsel,includingthosewhorepresentedhiminhisinitialtrialandinhisappeal,whichwassuccessfulinoverturninghisconviction, ^ Statev.Hubbel,286Mont.200,951P.2d971(1997). X  Therewasnoevidenceintherecordthatthecourtwasactingoutofvindictivenessand,under d 468113,thecourthastheauthoritytoorderthedefendanttopayallcostsoflegalrepresentation,notjustthosewhereheisunsuccessful.#~%~-# %~~  Under f 468113(3),thecourtwasrequiredto,butdidnot,makeaninquiry   intothedefendantsabilitytopaybeforesentencingthedefendanttopaymentofcosts.TheCourt_remanded_Ԁtothedistrictcourtforadeterminationofthedefendantsabilitytopay. #~%~W1#%~~ _ State_v._ԀJohnson(Elizabeth),2000MT290,302Mont.265,14P.3d480 0 (Missoula).Reversedinpart,remanded;Nelson,J. Indeterminingwhetherany H portionofajudgessubsequentwrittenjudgmentisunlawfulunder ] State_v._ԀLane, ` 288Mont,286,957P.2d9(1998),theCourtdetermines,first,whetherthedefendantwasaffordedtheopportunitytorespondtoitsinclusionuponsufficientnoticeatsentencingand,second,whetherthatportionofthewrittenjudgmentsubstantivelyincreasesoneoftwothings:(1)thedefendantslossofliberty;or(2)thedefendantssacrificeofproperty.#~%~3#    A. ` PersistentFelonyOffenderDesignation H6  X %~~  State_v._ԀFields,2000MT328,___Mont.___,15P.3d400(Flathead). 8" Affirmed;Leaphart,J. _Fieldswas_Ԁchargedwithfelonytheftanddrivingunder P# theinfluenceofalcohol.FieldsandtheStateenteredintoapleaagreementinwhichtheStateagreednottoseekpersistentfelonyoffenderstatus,torecommendasevenyearsuspendedsentence,andtodismissthedrivingundertheinfluenceofalcoholchargeinexchangeforFields'guiltyplea.Subsequently,theomnibusstatusreportwasfiledinwhichtheStatedidnotgivenoticethatitwasgoingtoseekthepersistentfelonyoffenderstatusforFields.Aftertheomnibusstatusreportwasfiled,FieldsinformedtheStatehedidnotwanttoabidebythepleaagreementandhewantedajurytrial.TheCourtheldthatthedistrictcourtcorrectlyconcludedthat,underMont.CodeAnn.4613108, goodcause (-x(% *-     existedtoallowtheStatetofileitsintenttoseekpersistentfelonyoffenderstatusaftertheomnibushearinginlightofField'sdecisionnottofollowthroughwith  thepleaagreement.#~%~6# %~~ j Statev._Neiderklopfer_,2000MT187,300Mont.397,6P.3d448(Missoula).  ` Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. _Neiderklopfer_Ԁfiledapetitionforpostconvictionrelief ( x claiminghissentenceaspersistentfelonyoffenderwasillegalbecauseofanallegedlyuntimely_PFO_Ԁnotice.Hispetitionwasdeniedbythedistrictcourtandheappealed.TheSupremeCourtaffirmedthedenialofpostconvictionreliefbecausethenoticewasnotajurisdictionaldefect,butonlyaproceduraldefect.Therefore,_Neiderklopfer_sfailuretoobjecttothenoticeconstitutedawaiveroftheclaim.TheSupremeCourtfurtherrejectedhisclaimthatcounselslackofanobjectionconstitutedineffectiveassistancesincehefailedtoallegethathewouldnothavepledguiltyhadhisattorneyadvisedhimoftheallegedlyuntimely_PFO_notice.#~%~0<# 8  0`      B. ` PleaAgreement h @0` `   %~~  l State_v._ԀSetters,2001MT101,305Mont.253,___P.3d___(Lake).Affirmed; ` Nelson,J. TheStatechargedSetterswithaccountabilityfortheft,acommon x schemebasedonallegationsthathehelpedhis_wifefraudulentlyobtain_Ԁpublicassistance.TheStatealsochargedSetterswiththeunrelatedoffenseoftamperingwithpublicrecords.ThepartiesexecutedapleaagreementwherebySettersagreedtopleadguiltytothetamperingchargeinexchangefortheStatesdismissalofthechargeoftheftbyaccountability.TheStatealsoagreedthatafterjudgmentwasenteredagainstSetters,itwoulddismissthetheftchargespendingagainstSetterswife.TheStateagreedtorecommendthatSettersreceiveafiveyearsuspendedprisonsentenceuponcertainconditions,includingthathepayrestitutiontotheDPHHSonthedismissedchargeofaccountabilityfortheft.DespitetheCourtspriorholdingin n State_v._ԀBlanchard,270Mont.11,15, h$ 889P.2d1180,1183(1995)thatanorderofrestitutionforunchargedconductisappropriatewhenitisbargainedforinapleaagreementthedistrictcourtsauthoritytoimposesentencesincriminalcasesisdefinedandconstrainedbystatute.Restitutionisstatutorilylimitedtothe victimofthecrimeforwhichadefendantisconvicted.SinceSetterswasnotconvictedoftheftbyaccountability,thecourt,despitethepleaagreement,couldnotorderhimtopayrestitutiononthatcharge.  ,`'$ *.     8X p #~%~!A# %~~State_v._ԀHorton,2001MT100,305Mont.242,___P.3d___(Park).Reversed;  Nelson,J. TheStatechargedHortonwithassortedtrafficoffenses,including  felonydrivingundertheinfluenceofalcoholandfelonynonsupport.HortonandtheStateexecutedapleaagreementwhereinHortonagreedtopleadguiltytothetrafficoffensesand,inexchange,theStateagreedtodismissthenon-supportcharge.TheStateagreedtorecommendasentencetotheDOC(tobeservedataprereleasecenter)ontheconditionthatHortonmakemonthlypaymentsonhischildsupportarrearageandkeepcurrentonhismonthlysupportobligation.AftertheStateexecutedthepleaagreement,HortonmadeahandwrittennotationthatthepartiesagreedHortoncouldargueagainsttheStatesrecommendationregardingpaymentofsupportarrearage.Atsentencing,thedistrictcourtorderedHortontomakemonthlypaymentsonhisarrearageandtokeepcurrentonhissupportobligation.ThedistrictcourtexceededitsstatutoryauthoritybyorderingHortontopayrestitutionforthedismissedcountofnon-support.DespitethecontractHortonenteredintowiththeState,thedistrictcourthasnoauthoritytoimposeasentenceintheabsenceofspecificstatutoryauthority.SinceHortondidnotpleadguiltytofelonynonsupport,therewasno victimofthecrimesforwhichHortonwasconvictedandtowhomHortoncouldbeorderedtopayrestitution.#~%~H#    C. ` MandatoryMinimums N x %~~ 8 r State_v._ԀSprinkle,2000MT188,304Mont.134,18P.3d1014(Lewisand  Clark).Remanded;Trieweiler,J. Sprinklepledguiltytocriminalsaleof  dangerousdrugs.ThecourtsentencedSprinkletothemandatoryminimumsentenceandconcludedthatnoneoftheexceptionstothemandatoryminimumsentenceapplied.Thedistrictcourtdidnotenterfindingstosupportitsconclusion,andthusdidnotcomplywithMont.CodeAnn. t 4618223.Withoutfindings,theCourtcouldnotreviewthelowercourtsjudgmentandthuscouldnotaddressthemeritsofSprinklesargument.TheCourtremandedthecasetothedistrictcourttoenterfindingsoffacttosupportitsconclusionthatSprinklewasnot_excepted_Ԁfromthemandatoryminimumsentence.#~%~@O#8%~~ State_v._Ԁ  Duffy,2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453(Stillwater).Affirmed; '#  Trieweiler,J. Duffywasconvictedoftwocountsofsexualintercoursewithout ($! consentandtwocountsofincest.DuffydoesnothavestandingtoclaimthattheminimumprisontermsofMont.CodeAnn. v 45-5-503(3)(a)and507(4)violatedhisrighttoequalprotectionwhenhewassentencedtogreaterthanthemandatoryminimumsentencebasedonthecourtsindependentdeterminationofthemagnitudeoftheoffenses. @.)& /   X   #~%~"S#8   D. ` Restitution ^V   %~~ Statev. x Setters,2001MT101,___State_Rptr_.___,___P.3d___(Lake). 0 Affirmed;Nelson,J. Settersagreedtopleadguiltytoonechargeinexchangefor H dismissalofanother.Healsoagreedtopayrestitutiononthechargethatwouldbedismissed.DespitetheCourtspriorholdinginState_v._Ԁ y Blanchard,270Mont.11, ( x 15,889P.2d1180,1183(1995)thatanorderofrestitutionforunchargedconductisappropriatewhenitisbargainedforinapleaagreementthedistrictcourtsauthoritytoimposesentencesincriminalcasesisdefinedandconstrainedbystatute.Restitutionisstatutorilylimitedtothe victimofthecrimeforwhichadefendantisconvicted.SinceSetterswasnotconvictedoftheftbyaccountability,thecourt,despitethepleaagreement,couldnotorderhimtopayrestitutiononthatcharge. #~%~V# %~~ State_v._Ԁ z Horton,2001MT100,305Mont.242,___P.3d___(Park).Reversed; P Nelson,J. TheStatechargedHortonwithassortedtrafficoffenses,including h felonydrivingundertheinfluenceofalcoholandfelonynonsupport.HortonandtheStateexecutedapleaagreementwhereinHortonagreedtopleadguiltytothetrafficoffensesand,inexchange,theStateagreedtodismissthenon-supportcharge.TheStateagreedtorecommendasentencetotheDOC(tobeservedataprereleasecenter)ontheconditionthatHortonmakemonthlypaymentsonhischildsupportarrearageandkeepcurrentonhismonthlychildsupportobligation.AftertheStateexecutedthepleaagreement,HortonmadeahandwrittennotationthatthepartiesagreedHortoncouldargueagainsttheStatesrecommendationregardingpaymentofsupportarrearage.Atsentencing,thedistrictcourtorderedHortontomakemonthlypaymentsonhisarrearageandtokeepcurrentonhissupportobligation.ThedistrictcourtexceededitsstatutoryauthoritybyorderingHortontopayrestitutionforthedismissedcountofnon-support.DespitethecontractHortonenteredintowiththeState,thedistrictcourthasnoauthoritytoimposeasentenceintheabsenceofspecificstatutoryauthority.SinceHortondidnotpleadguiltytofelonynonsupport,therewasno victimofthecrimesforwhichHortonwasconvictedandtowhomHortoncouldbeorderedtopayrestitution.#~%~Z# %~~_ | _  )0%" 4*0 4  4  Statev._LaTray_,2000MT262,302Mont.11,11P.3d116(Fergus).Affirmed;  Leaphart,J. Drunkdriverstruckanothervehicle,thenledlawenforcementona  highspeedchase,andendeduprollinghiscarinaditch.Hewastransportedvia_ambulance_Ԁtothehospitalandhiscarwastowed.Atsentencing,hewasorderedtopayrestitutiontotheambulanceandtowingcompanies.Onappeal,heclaimedthedistrictcourtlackedtheauthoritytoorderhimtopayrestitutiontothosecompaniessincetheyallegedlyarenot victims.TheSupremeCourtdisagreed,notingtheunambiguouslanguageofthestatuterequirescourtstoorder_offender_tomakefullrestitutionto anyvictimoftheoffensewhohassustainedpecuniarylossasaresultoftheoffense,includingapersonsufferinganeconomiclossasaresultofthecrime.TheCourtheldthattheterm anyvictimincludesthetowingandambulancecompanies,sincetheybothsufferedaneconomiclossandtheexpenseswerearesultofthedefendantscriminalconduct.#~%~La# %~~_ ~ _State_v._ԀPritchett,2000MT261,302Mont.1,11P.3d539(Flathead). P Reversed;Leaphart,J. Pritchettwasgivena20yearsuspendedsentenceand h orderedtopayrestitutionforpropertydamageresultingfromanexplosionhecaused.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthefailureofthePSItodocumentthevictimspecuniaryloss,aswellasPritchettsfinancialresourcesandabilitytopayrestitution,renderedthejudgmentillegal.Inaddition,adistrictcourtmaynotgivetheprobationofficerthediscretiontosetapaymentscheduleforrestitution.Theamountofrestitutionmustbebaseduponthemarketvalue,ratherthanreplacementvalue,ofthedestroyedproperty.Thedistrictcourtmaynotbasethelengthofasuspendedsentenceuponthedefendantsabilitytopayrestitution.#~%~f#    E. ` FinesorCosts j  X _ h _Statev.Smith(Paul_Emond_),2001MT111,___Mont.___,___P.3d___ 8" (Cascade).Affirmedinpart;Cotter,J. Uponrevocationofasuspended P# sentence,thedistrictcourtorderedSmithtopaythecostsofhisincarceration.Hedidnotobjectatthehearing,butonlyraisedtheissueonappeal.TheSupremeCourtaffirmedtheorder,notingthat"[t]hedistrictcourtcannotbeheldinerrorformistakesitwasnotgiventheopportunitytocorrect."%~~  ($! Y*1 Y  Y  8 *State_v._Ԁ i Hubbel,2001MT31,304Mont.184,20P.3d111(Ravalli).Affirmed  inpartandremanded;Nelson,J. Thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretion  inrequiring,asaconditionofpartialsuspensionofhissentenceupon_reconviction_,thatdefendantpaythecostsofhiscourtappointedcounsel,includingthosewhorepresentedhiminhisinitialtrialandinhisappeal,whichwassuccessfulinoverturninghisconviction,Statev.  Hubbel,951P.2d971(1997).Therewasno ( x evidenceintherecordthatthecourtwasactingoutofvindictivenessand,under  468113,thecourthastheauthoritytoorderthedefendanttopayallcostsoflegalrepresentation,notjustthosewhereheisunsuccessful.#~%~]m# 8   F.0 ` Enhancement q ` (#` (# %~~State_v._Ԁ S Hart,2000MT332,___Mont.___,15P.3d917(Yellowstone).   Affirmedinpart,vacatedinpart;Regnier,J. Hartwasconvictedoffelony 8  assaultandgivenanenhancedsentenceunder  4618222.Under  Statev. P _Guillaume_,1999MT29,293Mont.224,975P.2d312#~%~ r#%~~Hartisentitledtohavethe h weaponenhancementstrickenfromhissentence._Guillaume_appliestoallcases 0 notyetfinalatthetimeitwasdecided.#~%~$t# H    G.0 ` Oral_v._ԀWritten tux` (#` (# %~~   State_v._ԀSt.John,2001MT1,304Mont.47,15P.3d970(DeerLodge).  Affirmed;Nelson,J. While,admittedly,thedistrictcourt'ssentencingreasons  pronouncedorallyvariedfromthoseitexpressedinitswrittenjudgment,thefactthatthedistrictcourtarticulateddifferentreasonsforsentencingintheoralpronouncementof_sentence_ԀfromthoseinthewrittenjudgmentneitherincreasedSt.John'slossoflibertynorhissacrificeofproperty.St.Johnhasshownnoprejudice.Hereceivedthesamesentence.#~%~u#  8"  %~~ #~%~x#%~~State_v._Ԁ  Johnson(Elizabeth),2000MT290,302Mont.265,#~%~&y#%~~Ԁ14P.3d480 h$ (Missoula).Reversedinpart,remanded;Nelson,J. Indeterminingwhetherany %  portionofajudgessubsequentwrittenjudgmentisunlawfulunderState_v._Ԁ  Lane, &! 957P.2d9(1998),theCourtdetermines,first,whetherthedefendantwasaffordedtheopportunitytorespondtoitsinclusionuponsufficientnoticeatsentencingand,second,whetherthatportionofthewrittenjudgmentsubstantivelyincreasesoneoftwothings:(1)thedefendantslossofliberty;or(2)thedefendantssacrificeofproperty.#~%~y#  (-x(% *2        H.0 ` VictimImpact }` (#` (#  %~~ _  _Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422 0 (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. SupremeCourtrejectsKillsOnTops H allegationthatthedistrictcourtimproperlyadmittedvictimimpactevidenceunder  Booth_v._ԀMaryland,482U.S.496(1987).Boothappliesonlytojurysentencingin ( x adeathpenaltycase,andthecasewasexpresslyoverruledby    Payne_v._ԀTennessee, @  501U.S.808(1991).Thesentencingcourtsadmissionofnontestimonialvictimimpactevidencewasnoterroranddidnotviolatethedefendantsrighttoconfront_witnessesordueprocess_Ԁaslongasthedefendantknowstheevidencewillbepresentedandhastheopportunitytorebut. #~%~o}#   I.0 ` Other  ` (#` (#   Statev.  Smith(Paul_Emond_),2001MT111,___Mont.___,___P.3d___ P (Cascade).Reversed;Cotter,J. In1997,Smithwasgivenasuspended h sentencedfortheoffensesoffelonytheft,burglaryandunauthorizeduseofamotorvehicle.Hisprobationwasrevokedin2000afterheabscondedfromsupervision.Atthe_dispositional_Ԁhearing,Smithrequestedthecourtre-imposethesuspendedsentence,arguingthathewasrehabilitatedbecausehewasnowmarriedandafatherofthreechildren.BecausethecourtwasawarethatSmithwashimselfraisedwithoutmuchparentalsupervision,itorderedhimtocompleteparentingclassesaspartofacontinuationofhissupervision.Onappeal,theSupremeCourtreversed,finding"theresimplyisnonexusbetweentherequirementthatSmithparticipateinparentingclassesandthechargedoffenses,"asrequiredbytheCourtsdecisionin_  _Statev._Ommundson_,1999MT16,293  X Mont.133,974P.2d620.   !p  %~~   Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422 P# (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. Anoffenderisunderanaffirmativedutyto h$ showthattheallegedmisinformationinthe_presentence_ԀreportismateriallyinaccurateorprejudicialbeforeasentencewillbeoverturnedbytheSupremeCourt.  (-x(%  Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422  (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. Districtcourtproperlydeniedparoleeligibility  ontheaggravated_kidnapping_Ԁconviction,eventhoughVernonwasnotpresentwhenthevictimwasactuallymurdered,basedonitsfindingthatDefendants conductinconnectionwithsuchcrimewasanintegralpartoftheeventsleadingto[_Etchemendy_s]deathandbecause[Petitioner]hadtheopportunitytotakeactiontoterminatethekidnapingandtherebyprevent[_Etchemendy_s]brutalandneedlessdeath,andbecauseofVernonsalcoholaddiction(eventhoughhehadnotdranksincehisincarceration).Thecourtalsoproperly_designatedVernonadangerousoffender_.JusticeTrieweilerdissentedontheparoleeligibilityissue,pointingoutthattherecorddidnotsupportthedistrictcourtsfindingthatVernonparticipatedinthebatteringandrobberyofthevictim.Healsodeclaredthatdeclaringadefendantparoleineligiblebecause noonecanguaranteethathewillneverdrinkagainiscompletelyarbitrary,ignoresthebestevidenceavailableregardinganalcoholicsrehabilitationandcondemnseverycriminaldefendantwhohaseverhadanassociateddrinkingproblemtoadenialofparole. #~%~#%~~State_v._Ԁ  Scarborough,2000MT301,302Mont.350,#~%~#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1202(Lake). H Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Scarboroughallegedthathewasimproperlysentenced ` andassertedthatthedistrictcourtfailedtoindependentlyconsiderevidencepresentedattrialthatdemonstratedhelackedthecapacitytoactpurposelyorknowinglybyreasonofmentaldiseaseordefect.TheSupremeCourtrejectedtheassertion.TheCourtrecognizedthatthedistrictcourtclearlystateditconsideredtheevidenceandfoundnoevidencethathelackedtherequisitecapacitytoactpurposelyorknowingly. (Mentaldiseaseordefect) #~%~f#%~~ @ #~%~#   !p   *VIII.  POSTTRIAL v     A. ` AppealPreservationofIssues  0 Statev.  Smith(Paul_Emond_),2001MT111,___Mont.___,___P.3d___  ` (Cascade).Affirmedinpart;Cotter,J. Uponrevocationofasuspended ( x sentence,thedistrictcourtorderedSmithtopaythecostsofhisincarceration.Hedidnotobjectatthehearing,butonlyraisedtheissueonappeal.TheSupremeCourtaffirmedtheorder,notingthat"[_t]he_Ԁdistrictcourtcannotbeheldinerrorformistakesitwasnotgiventheopportunitytocorrect."%~~8 _  _Statev._Giddings_,2001MT76,305Mont.74,___P.3d___(LewisandClark).   Reversedandremanded;Nelson,J. Probationer_Giddings_Ԁwasarrestedona   benchwarrantandwasprocessedthroughthejudicialsystemasopposedtotheprobationviolatorprisondiversionprogramasoutlinedinMont.CodeAnn.  46-231012(4)._Giddings_Ԁdidnotchallengethisprocedureindistrictcourt.Onappeal,however,heclaimedthatthedistrictcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontorevokehisprobationbecausenoprobablecausehearingwasheldwithin36hoursofhisarrest.TheStatearguedthat(1)theerrorwaswaived;and(2)thestatuterequiredaprobablecausehearingonlywhentheprobationerwasarrestedbyhisprobationofficerpursuanttotheprobationviolatorprisondiversionprogram.TheCourtheldthatbecausetheissuewasjurisdictional,itwasnotwaived,andthattheplainlanguageofthestatuterequiredaprobablecausehearingwheneveraprobationerhasbeenarresteduponawarrant. #~%~#8%~~  In_re_ԀA.M.,2001MT60,304Mont.379,22P.3d185(DeerLodge).Affirmed;  X Nelson,J. Courtwillnotreviewforthefirsttimeonappeal_mothers_Ԁcontention  !p thattheADAappliestodependentneglectproceedingsandthatitrequiresspecialconsiderationofhermentalhealthissues. #~%~#%~~Statev.  _LaDue_,2001MT47,304Mont.288,20P.3d775(SilverBow). %  Affirmed;Nelson,J. Thedefendantscontentionthathisconstitutionalrightto &! presentadefensewasviolatedwhenthedistrictcourtdeniedhismotiontocalladditionalwitnesseswaswaivedonappealbecausehefailedtoobjectonthatgroundattrial. #~%~#%~~ (-x(% *5        State_v._ԀGrace,2001MT22 , 304Mont.144,18P.3d1008(Cascade).  Affirmed;Regnier,J. TheCourtdeclinedtoconsiderGracesallegationthatthe  districtcourterredindenyingGracesmotionforanewtrialbasedonhisallegationthattheStateimproperlyvouchedforthecredibilityofawitnessduringitsrebuttalargument.Gracefailedtoobjectinatimelyfashiontoanyprosecutorialcommentsduringthetrialandtherebyfailedtoproperlypreservethisissueforappeal.Foranobjectiontobetimely,itmustbemadeassoonasthegroundsfortheobjectionbecomesapparent.  X  #~%~#%~~State_v._Ԁ  Whipple,2001MT16,304Mont.118,19P.3d228(Missoula).   Affirmed;Regnier,J. (Gray,_C.J._,Nelson,J.,Leaphart,J.,Trieweiler,J.,   concurring).TheCourtdeclinedtoinvoketheplainerrorruletoreviewtheproprietyofexperttestimonyinasexualassaultcase.Whipplefailedtodemonstratewithsufficientprecisionwhichfundamentalrightwasimplicatedbytheerrorinquestion.TheCourtsaid, Itisnotobvioustous,norwasitlikelyobvioustotheStatewhenbriefingthisissue,exactlywhichrightofWhipplescontainedin  articleII,section24wascompromisedbytheallegederror.Itreferredtothatsectionasa laundrylistofrights[_,]_saying, Becauseclaimsofplainerrorarealmostinvariablyclaimsraisedforthefirsttimeinadefendantsbriefonappeal,adefendantmustdomorethansimplymakeageneralizedclaimthathisorherconstitutionalrightswereviolatedbytheallegederror.#~%~#   %~~State_v._Ԁ  St.John,2001MT1,304Mont.47,15P.3d970(DeerLodge).  Affirmed;Nelson,J. BecauseSt.Johndidnotobjecttothedistrictcourt'sfailure ( toconsideralternativestoimprisonment,St.Johnisbarredfromraisingthatissueonappeal.   X #~%~# %~~   State_v._ԀTucker,2000MT255,301Mont.466,10P.3d832(LewisandClark). 8" Affirmed;Hunt,J. Appellantarguedforthefirsttimeonappealthatthe P# sentencingcourtdidnotadequatelystatereasonswhyitchosenottoapplyanexceptiontothemandatoryminimumsentenceasrequiredbyMont.CodeAnn.  4618223(3).TheSupremeCourtrefusedtoaddressthisissue,stating: Wewillnotreviewissuesthatwerenotpreservedforappealinadistrictcourt.Theonlyexceptiontothewaiverruleiswherethesentenceimposedisillegalorexceedsstatutorymandates,inwhichcasethisCourtmayreviewforerrorsevenifnoobjectionisregisteredatthetimeofsentencing.Thatexceptionisinapplicablehere[.] #~%~# (-x(% 6         B. ` HabeasCorpusandPostconvictionRelief      `  1.0 StatuteofLimitations @0 (# (#  %~~ #~%~#~~_  _State_v._ԀWells#~~##~,#~#ߍ#%~~Ԁ2001MT55,304Mont.329,21P.3d610(Cascade).Affirmed;  ` Regnier,J. TheCourtfoundthatWellspostconviction  _Guillaume_double 6  jeopardyclaimregardingtheweaponenhancementstatutewastimebarredbecauseWellsfailedtofileherpostconvictionpetitionwithinoneyearafterherconvictionbecamefinal,asrequiredbyMont.CodeAnn.  46-21-102(1).TheCourtrejected_Wells_Ԁclaimthattheoneyearlimitationperiodunder46-21-102(1)isastatuteoflimitationsthatcanbeequitablytolled.TheCourtaffirmeditspreviousholdingsthat  46-21-102isajurisdictionallimitationonlitigationandisonlywaivedwhenthereisaclearmiscarriageofjustice.ThemiscarriageofjusticeexceptionrequiresashowingofactualinnocenceandWellsfailedtoshowshewasactuallyinnocentofthecrime.  TheCourtalsoheldthatWells_Guillaume_doublejeopardyclaimwas &v procedurallybarredbyMont.CodeAnn.  46-21-105(2)becauseshecouldhaveraisedherclaimonadirectappeal.WhenWellshadtheopportunitytofileadirectappeal,theCourthadnotyetissueditsdecision_Guillaume_.Althoughnot n specificallystatingsoinitsdecision,theCourtseemstohaveacceptedtheStatesargumentthatthelackofprecedent(_Guillaume_)wasnotanexcuseforWells  failuretoraiseherdoublejeopardyclaiminadirectappeal.   State_v._ԀCharlo,2000MT192,300Mont.435,4P.3d1201(Missoula). 6 Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Charlowasconvictedofaggravatedassaultin1986. N Thirteenyearslater,hepetitionedforpostconvictionreliefarguingthatheisentitledtothebenefitoftheCourtsdecisionin_Guillaume_.Thedistrictcourt .!~ deniedthepetitionasuntimely.TheSupremeCourtaffirmed,rulingthatthe actualinnocenceexceptiontothefiveyearstatuteoflimitationswasnotapplicablebecausetheissueraisedwasalegalissueanddidnotgotothequestionofCharlosinnocence.#~%~Ю#%~~  '#  r*****   `  2.0 AppointmentofCounsel d (# (# #~%~# %~~ _  __Swearingen_Ԁv.State,2001MT10,304Mont.97,18P.3d998(Missoula). 0 Reversedandremanded;Nelson,J. Oncethedistrictcourthasdeterminedthat H ahearingisrequired,unlessthepetitionerspecificallywaivescounsel,thecourtismandatorilyobligatedtoappointcounselunder  4621201(2),andthepetitionerisnotrequiredtodemonstrateprejudiceresultingfromthestatutoryviolation.#~%~# %~~    `  3.0 IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel p  (# (#  _  _Statev._Cady_,2000MT353,___Mont.___,15P.3d479(Ravalli).Affirmed;   Gray,J. TheMontanaSupremeCourtaffirmedthedistrictcourtsdismissalof   _Cady_spostconvictionineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaims._Cady_Ԁallegedhiscounselwasineffectivebecausecounselfailedtomovetowithdrawhispleaafter_Cady_Ԁallegedlytoldcounselhehadbeendiagnosedasschizophrenicandaskedcounseltomovetowithdrawtheplea.Duringthepostconvictionhearing,counseltestifiedthatthefirsttimeanissueofschizophreniaorothermentalillnessarosewasin_Cady_spostconvictionpetition.Thedistrictcourtinweighingthecredibilityofwitnessesfoundthatcounselwasnotinformedofanypsychiatricissues,muchlessthat_Cady_Ԁhadbeendiagnosedasaparanoidschizophrenic.TheCourtchosenottodisturbthedistrictcourtsfinding,concludingthatitwassupportedbysubstantialevidenceandwasnotclearlyerroneous.  _Cady_ԀalsoarguedthatcounselsperformancewasdeficientbecausecounselallowedthedistrictcourttosentencehimwithoutpresentinghisFortHarrisonmedicalrecordsregardinghismentalhealthproblems.Therecordrevealedthatcounseldidmakeattemptstoacquireallof_Cady_smedicalrecords,buttheonlyoneshereceivedfromFortHarrisonconcerned_Cady_ssubstanceabuseandherniaproblem.AfterreviewingtheFortHarrisonmedicalrecordswhichwerenotprovidedtocounsel,thedistrictcourtfoundthat_Cady_Ԁhadnotbeendiagnosedasaparanoidschizophrenic,themedicalstaffatFortHarrisonbelievedhewasmentallycompetent,andthat_Cady_Ԁfailedtoestablishasamatteroflawreliablefactstosupporthisclaimoflackofmentalcapacity.TheMontanaSupremeCourt,inaffirmingthedistrictcourtsdenialof_Cady_sclaimagain,heldthatthedistrictcourtsfindingsweresupportedbysubstantialevidenceintherecordandwerenotclearlyerroneous.%%~ )0%" #%~%##~%~Z#%~~ (-x(% r*8 r  r  8   Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422  (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. Whenadefendantestablishesthatcounsels  performancewasdeficientinthatcounselsufferedfromanactualconflictofinterestwhichadverselyaffectedthedefendantsrepresentation,prejudicetothedefenseispresumed.Here,theallegedconflictwasdefensecounselscampaignfordistrictjudgeshortlybeforethetrialandcountyattorneytwoyearsafterthetrial,aswellashisauthorshipofabookaboutthePeggy_Harstad_Ԁmurder(DeweyColeman).TheSupremeCourtdeterminedthatthecandidaciespresentednoactualconflictofinterest: Itisnotentirelyinconceivablethatanunprincipledcandidatefor_countyattorneyordistrictjudge_Ԁmightattempttocurrypoliticalfavorwiththeelectoratebyensuringthatanunpopularclientdoesnotescapeconvictionandthenpublicizinghisorherroleinobtainingthatconviction.However,Petitionerhasnotpresenteduswithanyevidencethatthisoccurred.Ahypotheticalconflictisinsufficient...TheCourtalsorejectedtheallegedconflictofinterestonthebasisofthebook.EventhoughtherewerecommentstotheeffectthattheauthorsupportedimpositionofthedeathsentenceforColeman,the_authors_commentswerenotevidencethathe activelyrepresentedconflictinginterests. 8Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422 ` (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. Counselsfailuretoutilizethetrialtranscript x fromtheLesterKills_On_ԀToptrialtochallengewitnessesatVernonstrialdidnotconstituteineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.ThetestimonyhadnoevidentiarysignificanceregardingVernonsguiltorinnocence.#~%~#%~~ _  _State_v._ԀTurner,2000MT270,302Mont.69,12P.3d934(Dawson).Affirmed; @ Hunt,J. Turnerfiledapostconvictionpetitionchallenginghis1988convictions  X fordeliberatehomicide(threecounts),felonyassault(twocounts),andaggravatedburglary.Heclaimedthat(1)hispleaswereinvoluntarybecausecounseldidnotadequatelyadvisehimregardingpossiblepunishment(heclaimedhepledguiltytoavoidthedeathpenaltyand,infact,deathwasnotarealisticpunishment);(2)counselshouldnothaveallowedtheStatetobeprivytothepsychiatricevaluationinviolationof  _Ake_Ԁv.Oklahoma;and(3)counseldidnotadequatelypresent &! mitigatingevidenceatsentencing.ThedistrictcourtrejectedtheseclaimsandtheSupremeCourtaffirmedthedenialofpostconvictionreliefonappeal.ThemostsignificantaspectofthiscaseistheCourtsclarificationofthestandardofreviewfor_IAC_Ԁclaimsonapostconvictionappeal.Since_IAC_Ԁisamixedquestionoflawandfact,citing  _Iaea_Ԁv._Sunn_,800F.2d861(9thCir.1986),theCourtadoptedade ,`'$ novostandardofreviewfortheseclaimsonappeal. (-x(% *9     #~%~ # %~~  Dawson_v._ԀState,2000MT219,301Mont.135,10P.3d49(Yellowstone).  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Courtrejectsnumerousallegationsofineffective  assistanceatallphasesofproceedingswherecounselisconstitutionallyguaranteed:_pretrial_,trial,sentencing,anddirectappeal.   `  4.0 RecordBasedv.NonRecordBasedClaims `( x (# (#  #~%~#%~~_  _Statev._Dyfort_,2000MT338,___Mont.___,15P.3d464(Missoula). X  Dismissedwithoutprejudice;Regnier,J. Inthisdirectappealofacriminal p  conviction,thedefendantraisedaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel._Dyfort_Ԁallegedthathiscounsel,Larry_Mansch_,wronglyallowedtheStatetouse_Dyfort_'saccomplice's_Alford_Ԁpleaassubstantiveevidenceof_Dyfort_'sguiltwithoutaskingthetrialjudgetogivethejuryacautionaryinstruction.TheStateargued,andtheCourtagreed,thattheallegationcouldnotberesolvedontherecord.BasedontheCourt'sdecisionin  Hagen_v._ԀState,1999MT8,10,293Mont.60, P 973P.2d233,since_Dyfort_'sallegationwasnotresolvableontherecord,theCourtdismissedtheappealwithoutprejudice.  N.B.:Inperhapstheclearestpronouncementtodateonwhatconstitutesarecordbased_IAC_Ԁclaim,theCourtstated: Aclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselisbasedontherecordandmustberaisedondirectappealiftheallegationscanbeestablishedanddisprovedonfactsthatcanbedocumentedsolelyfromtherecordpresentedonappeal.   `  5.0 ProceduralBar H( (# (#  #~%~#%~~    State_v._ԀRonaldAllenSmith,2000MT327,___Mont.___,15P.3d395  X (Flathead).Affirmed;Gray,J. ThiscasewasdeathrowinmateSmithsfirst  !p postconvictionproceedingonhisthirddeathsentence.TheCourtheldthatthepostconvictioncourtdidnoterrinrulingthatSmithwasprocedurallybarredfromraisingtheissueoftheconstitutionalityofMontana'sstatutoryschemeofselectingsubstitutejudgesasappliedtohiscase.Smithcouldhavereasonablyraised,butfailedtoraise,thisclaim,notoncebutinnumerablyintheprior,multiplecriminaltrialcourtanddirectappealproceedings.Further,thepost-convictioncourtdidnoterrinfailingtograntSmithahearingsohecouldpresentevidencethatJudgeLarson'spost-sentencingactionsshowedbiastowardhimandhiscounsel.TheCourtdeclaredthatitfullyconsidered,butrejected,thatcontentioninthedirectappeal. Smith'srequestforahearingonhis newevidenceisreallynothingmorethanarequestforafishingexpedition. (-x(% *:     Postconvictionreliefproceedingsarenotadiscoverydeviceinwhichapetitioner,throughbroadallegationsin_averifiedpleading_,mayestablishtherighttoanevidentiaryhearing.#~%~#%~~ #~%~#   `  6.0 Miscellaneous  ` (# (# %~~  Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422 @  (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. Adistrictcourtdoesnotcommiterrorwhenit X  adoptsapartysproposedfindingsandconclusionswheretheadoptedfindingsandconclusionsare sufficientlycomprehensiveandpertinenttotheissuestoprovideabasisforthedecisionandaresupportedbytheevidence.  Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422   (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. Thedistrictcourtwasobligatedonremandto 8  determinewhether_petitioner_ԀwasentitledtoreliefonClaims16,17,and18,butitsfailuretodosowasharmlesserror.Itiswellestablishedthat nocivilcaseshallbereversedbyreasonoferrorwhichwouldhavenosignificantimpactupontheresult;_if_Ԁthereisnoshowingofsubstantialinjustice,theerrorisharmless. Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422 x (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. Petitionersclaimregardingnewlydiscovered  evidencewasrelevantonlytotheimpositionofthedeathpenalty,nottotheunderlyingconviction,andwasthusrenderedmootbytheSupremeCourtspriordecisionvacatingthedeathsentence.#~%~t#%~~ Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422  X (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. Districtcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin  !p denyingKillsOnTopsmotionforachangeofvenuefora_resentencing_ԀfollowingtheSupremeCourtsordervacatingthedeathsentence. Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422 %  (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. PursuanttoStatev._Montoya_,1999MT180, &! 295Mont.288,983P.2d937,theSupremeCourtreviewsasentenceforlegalityonlyeventhoughatthetimeKills_On_ԀTopcommittedtheoffenses,thestandardwasanabuseofdiscretion.Applicationof_Montoya_sclarifiedstandarddoesnot )0%" violateexpostfactoprinciples. #~%~# %~~ (-x(% *;     #~%~<#%~~  _Eisenman_Ԁv.State,2000MT170,300Mont.322,5P.3d542(Missoula).  SupervisoryControl_granted_Ԁ(OpinionandOrder). _Eisenman_Ԁfiledapetition  forwritofsupervisorycontrolrequestinggoodtimecreditfortimespentincarceratedpriortotrialinaccordancewith  _MacPheat_Ԁv.Mahoney,2000MT62, H 299Mont.46,997P.2d753.TheSupremeCourtheldthathabeascorpus,notsupervisorycontrol,wastheappropriateremedyeventhough_Eisenman_Ԁwouldnotbeentitledtoreleaseifhabeasreliefweregranted.TheCourtrejectedtheStatesargumentthat_MacPheat_shouldnotbeappliedretroactively,followingtheU.S. X  SupremeCourtsanalysisin  _Teague_Ԁv.Lane,489U.S.288(1989).TheCourt p  remandedthecasetothedistrictcourtforadeterminationofwhether_Eisenman_wasentitledtogoodtimecredit.TheCourtinstructedthatthedistrictcourtisnotrequiredtofigureouthowmanydaysofcredit,butonlywhetherthedefendantisentitledtocredit.TheexactnumberofdaysisanadministrativefunctionlefttotheDOC. #~%~#   C. ` MotionforNewTrial  h  %~~ State_v._Ԁ  Grace,2001MT22 , 304Mont.144,18P.3d1008(Cascade). H Affirmed;Regnier,J. ThedistrictcourtdidnoterrindenyingGracesmotion ` foranewtrialbasedonhisallegationof_insufficientaccomplice_Ԁcorroborativetestimony.TherewassufficientcorroboratingevidencepresentedattrialtosupporttheprosecutionstheorythatGrace,andnothisfriend/accomplice_Spangelo_,wastherobber.Further,theCourtdeclinedtoconsiderGracesallegationthatthedistrictcourterredindenyinghismotionforanewtrialbasedonhisallegationtheStateimproperlyvouchedforthecredibilityofawitnessduringitsrebuttalargument.Gracefailedtoobjectinatimelyfashiontoanyprosecutorialcommentsduringthetrialandtherebyfailedtoproperlypreservethisissueforappeal.Foranobjectiontobetimely,itmustbemadeassoonasthegroundsfortheobjectionbecomeapparent.#~%~]#~~   State_v._ԀAllen,2001MT17,304Mont.129,18P.3d1006(Sanders).Affirmed; %  Regnier,J. Allenwaschargedwithfelonycriminalmischiefforshootingbullets &! intohissisterscar.Followingatrial,thejuryreturnedaguiltyverdict.Allenmovedthedistrictcourtforanewtrialonthebasisonnewlydiscoveredevidence,allegingthatcertainrepairswerenevermadetothevehicleandthathissisterprovidedfalsetestimonyattrial.TheCourtheldthatthedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingAllensmotionforanewtrial.TheCourtagreedwiththeStatethatmuchofAllens newlydiscoveredevidencewaspresented (-x(% *<     attrialandthatanyactualnewlydiscoveredevidencewouldnotlikelyproduceadifferentresultatanewtrial,becausetheStatedidnothavetoprovethatthevictimactuallyrepairedthedamagedproperty,butthatthevictimsufferedapecuniarylossgreaterthan$500.#~~# ~~Statev. ! _Billedeaux_,2001MT9,304Mont.89,18P.3d990(BigHorn). ( x Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Followingajurytrial,_Billedeaux_Ԁwasconvictedof @  deliberatehomicide(felonymurder).Onappeal,theCourtheldthatthedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenying_Billedeaux_smotionforanewtrial._Billedeaux_Ԁwaschargedwithaccountabilityfordeliberatehomicideanddeliberatehomicideunderthefelonymurderrule.Afterthejuryreturnedaverdictofguiltyonthefelonymurdercharge,_Billedeaux_Ԁdiscoveredthattheword accountabilityhadbeenomittedbeforethewords deliberatehomicide.Thecourtfoundthattheclericalerrordidnotaffecttheoutcomeofthetrial,becausetheargumentsandinstructionspresentedattrialleftnodoubtthatthechargeinCountIwasaccountabilityfordeliberatehomicide,notdeliberatehomicide.#~~# %~~State_v._Ԁ  Marker,2000MT303,302Mont.380,#~%~8#%~~15P.3d373(Jefferson) H (stateappeal).Reversed;Leaphart,J. AjuryconvictedMarkerofaggravated ` assaultbyaccountability.Thedistrictcourtsetasidetheverdictandorderedanewtrialsuasponte.TheStateappealed,arguingthatalthoughthedistrictcourthastheauthoritytoorderanewtrial(citing  State_v._ԀBrummer,1998MT11,  287Mont.168,953P.2d250),itmustfollowthetimeandnoticerequirementsofMont.CodeAnn.  4616702(1997).TheSupremeCourtrejectedthisargument,holdingthatthetimeandnoticerequirementspertainingtothefilingofmotionsforanewtrialdonotapplytoadistrictcourtactingsuasponte.JusticesNelsonandGraydissented,arguingthatBrummerwaswronglydecidedandthatthe  !p SupremeCourtcontinuestomisinterpretMont.CodeAnn.  4616702.Intheiropinion, [_i]t_Ԁshouldremaintheobligationofthedefenselawyernotthetrialjudgetorepresentandadvocateforthedefendantandtodetermine,inatimelymanner,whetherandonwhatgroundsanewtrialshouldberequested.#~%~# *  '#  *=     *   D.0 ` HarmlessError  ` (#` (#  %~~ Inre  _J.M._ԀJr.,2001MT51,304Mont.303,21P.3d618(Yellowstone). 0 Affirmed;Regnier,J. Motherwasprovidedwitha BabyThinkitOverDoll H whichwasoutfittedwithacontrolmoduleprogrammedtorespondtoincidentsofneglectorabuse.Whileinmotherspossession,thedollrecordedoneincidentofabuse.TheStatelatersoughttoterminatemothersrightsforfailingtocompletehertreatmentplan.Atthehearing,theStateintroducedevidenceregardingthedollabuseincidentovercounselsobjectionthatinsufficientfoundationexistedforitsadmission.TheSupremeCourtfounderror,concludingthattheStatefailedtoshow,giventhebasisfortermination,howtheevidencehadatendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactofconsequenceeithermoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence,andbecausetheStatefailedtoproduceevidenceofthedollsreliability.ButtheCourtdeemedtheerrorharmlessandaffirmedtheorderoftermination. #~%~ #%~~   InreC.B.and_J.B._,2001MT42,304Mont.252,20P.3d117(Madison). 0 Affirmed;Regnier,J. Onappealfollowingterminationoftheirparentalrightsto H _J.B._,theparentscontendedtheywereprejudicedbecausethedistrictcourterroneouslyfoundthat_J.B._smotherhadlostcustodyofanotherchild.Althoughtherewasnoevidenceintherecordtosupportthedistrictcourtserroneousfinding, Itiswellestablishedthatnocivilcaseshallbereversedbyreasonoferrorwhichwouldhavenosignificantimpactupontheresult;_if_Ԁthereisnoshowingofsubstantialinjustice,theerrorisharmless.#~%~# %~~ State_v._Ԁ  Whipple,2001MT16,304Mont.118,___P.3d___(Missoula).  X Affirmed;_Regnier,J. (Gray,C.J.,Nelson,J.,Leaphart,J.,Trieweiler,J.,  !p concurring)._ԀJayBurkeWhipplewasconvictedbyajuryoffourcountsoffelonysexualassaultinviolationofMont.CodeAnn.  455502forthreeinstancesofsexualcontactwithanineyearoldgirlandoneinstancewithaneightyearoldgirl.  Whipplearguedonappealthatthedistrictcourthaderredbyallowingthegirlsphysiciantotestifyontheirremarkstohimabouttheincidents.Hecontended,andtheCourtagreed,thatthetestimonydidnotfitwithinthemedicaltreatmentexceptiontothehearsayrulebecausethegirlsweretakentothephysiciannotfortreatmentbutattherequestofthepolice.TheCourtheldtheerrorharmlessbecausethegirlsalsotestified,andtheirtestimonyforthemostpartsimplyduplicatedwhattheyhadtoldthephysician.Itcitedwithapproval (-x(% >      State_v._Ԁ  Alexander,265Mont.192,875P.2d345(1994),whichsaidthatevidence  admittederroneouslywasharmlessbecauseitincludedonlyinformationlaterverifiedbyproperlyadmittedevidence.TheCourtalsomentioned,onthispoint,State_v._Ԁ  Washington,506S.E.2d283(N.C.Ct.App.1998). H  #~%~<#   E. ` RevocationofSentence  ( x  %~~ Statev.  _Giddings_,2001MT76,302Mont.99,#~%~r#%~~Ԁ___P.3d___(LewisandClark). X  Reversedandremanded;Nelson,J. Probationer_Giddings_Ԁwasarrestedona p  benchwarrantandwasprocessedthroughthejudicialsystemasopposedtotheprobationviolatorprisondiversionprogramasoutlinedinMont.CodeAnn.  46231012(4)._Giddings_Ԁdidnotchallengethisprocedureindistrictcourt.Onappeal,however,heclaimedthatthedistrictcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontorevokehisprobationbecausenoprobablecausehearingwasheldwithin36hoursofhisarrest.TheStatearguedthat(1)theerrorwaswaived;_and_Ԁ(2)thestatuterequiredaprobablecausehearingonlywhentheprobationerwasarrestedbyhisprobationofficerpursuanttotheprobationviolatorprisondiversionprogram.TheCourtheldthatbecausetheissuewasjurisdictional,itwasnotwaived,andthattheplainlanguageofthestatuterequiredaprobablecausehearingwheneveraprobationerhasbeenarresteduponawarrant. #~%~#%~~   Statev._Goebel_,2001MT73,305Mont.53,___P.3d___(Mineral)(state  appeal).Reversedandremanded;Nelson,J. Thiswasastateappealbythe  DOC,whichraisedthesameissueas_Giddings_,supra.ContrarytotheStates ( positionin_Giddings_,however,theDOCarguedthataprobablecausehearing @ withinthirtysixhoursisrequiredonlywheretheprobationerisarrestedonabenchwarrant.Since_Goebel_Ԁwasarrestedbyhisprobationofficer,noprobablecausehearingwasrequired.TheCourtagreedwiththeDOCspositionbasedontheplainlanguageofthestatute,butacknowledgedthatitmadelittlepracticalsenseandthestatuteitselfwas illogical._DOC_Ԁtriedtowithdrawitsappealbeforeadecisionwasrendered,buttheCourtdeniedtherequest. #~%~!#~~_  _Statev._Bjarko_,2000MT387N(UNPUBLISHED)(Cascade).Affirmed; '#  Nelson,J. Afterpleadingguiltytosexualoffenses,_Bjarko_Ԁwassentencedto ($! DOCfortenyearswithfiveyearssuspended._Bjarko_Ԁwasdeclaredparoleineligibleuntilhecompletedsexoffendertreatment,PhaseII,attheprison. (-x(% *?     _Bjarko_Ԁdidnotcompletetheprogram.Inanticipationof_Bjarko_sprojectedreleasedate,thecountyattorneypetitionedtorevokethesuspendedsentenceonthegroundthat_Bjarko_ԀfailedtocompleteSOTinprison._Bjarko_Ԁobjected,claimingitwasaconditionofparoleonlynotofhissuspendedsentence.TheSupremeCourtdisagreed,holdingthatcompletionofsexoffendertreatmentwasanimplicitrequirementofprobation,aswellasparole,asitrelatestobothhisneedforrehabilitationandsocietysneedforprotection.#~~.&# %~~_  _State_v._Ԁ  Field,2000MT268,302Mont.62,11P.3d1203(Lincoln).Reversed; p  Hunt,J. Fieldwassentencedtosixteenyearsinprisonwitheightsuspendedfor   felonydeviatesexualconductwithaboy.Thedistrictcourtrequiredhimtocompletethesexoffenderprogramand,forthesuspendedportionofthesentence,attemptedtoincorporateconditionsthatmightbeimposedonprobation.WhenFieldwasdischargedfromprisonin1991,theDepartmentofInstitutions(nowCorrections)setaspecialcondition,whichFieldacknowledgedontheprobationagreement,stating, Youshallnotbealonewithminorchildren.  In1998,theStatemovedtorevokeFieldsprobationforviolatingthespecialcondition.TheStateandFieldenteredintoadeferredprosecutionagreementforthatoffense.Fieldagreedtoattendasexualoffendertreatmentprogramandadmittedtounsupervisedcontactwithasixteenyearoldboy.Laterthatyear,theStatefiledanamendedpetitionchargingthatFieldhadbeenterminatedfromthesexualoffenderprogramandhadbeenalonewithtwominors.ThedistrictcourtultimatelydismissedFieldsmotiontodismisstheamendedpetitionandfoundthathehadviolatedboththedeferredprosecutionagreementandtherestrictiononassociationwithminors.  Onappeal,theCourtagreedwithField,whoarguedthatthespecialconditionofprobationrestrictinghiscontactwithminorswasinvalid.TheCourtsaidthatMont.CodeAnn.  4618801,eventhoughitwasamendedin1995toallowincorporationofconditionsofparoleestablishedbytheDOCineffectwhensentencewasimposed,didnotallowasentencingjudgetogranttheDepartmentthepowertomodifyasentencebyimposing subsequentconstitutionalinfringementsafterthejudgmentandsentencehavebeensigned.(TheStateandFieldhadagreed,astheCourthasearlierstated,thatfreedomofassociationisaconstitutionallyprotectedright.) [_A]n_Ԁabridgementof[a]constitutionallyprotectedinterestmustbeperformedbytheDistrictCourtandarticulatedatthetimeofsentencing,notmodifiedfouryearsafterthesentenceisimposedbyaprobationofficer.#~%~a+#  (-x(% _ b _Statev._Vallier_,2000MT225,301Mont.228,8P.3d112(Cascade).Affirmed;Hunt,J. DefendantsfailuretocompletePhaseIIsexoffender  treatmentwhileincarceratedisvalidbansforrevocationpriortohisrelease.Districtcourtisnotrequiredtoextendoutpatienttreatmentwhereevidenceshowsthatdefendantisadangertothecommunity.   F. ` Retroactivity 6 @  %~~     _Eisenman_Ԁv.State,2000MT170,300Mont.322,#~%~K7#%~~Ԁ5P.3d542(Missoula). p  SupervisoryControl_granted_Ԁ(OpinionandOrder). _Eisenman_Ԁfiledapetition   forwritofsupervisorycontrolrequestinggoodtimecreditfortimespentincarceratedpriortotrialinaccordancewith  _MacPheat_Ԁv.Mahoney,2000MT62,   299Mont.46,#~%~7#%~~Ԁ997P.2d753.TheSupremeCourtheldthathabeascorpus,not   supervisorycontrol,wastheappropriateremedyeventhough_Eisenman_Ԁwouldnotbeentitledtoreleaseifhabeasreliefweregranted.TheCourtrejectedtheStatesargumentthat_MacPheat_shouldnotbeappliedretroactively,followingtheU.S. h SupremeCourtsanalysisin  _Teague_Ԁv.Lane,489U.S.288(1989).TheCourt 0 remandedthecasetothedistrictcourtforadeterminationofwhether_Eisenman_wasentitledtogoodtimecredit. #~%~9#   G.0 ` ProcedureonRemand =` (#` (#  %~~ State_v._Ԁ  Lopez,2001MT97,305Mont.218,___P.3d___(Cascade).Reversed  andremanded;Trieweiler,J. TheStateconcedederrorbasedonStatev. (   _LaMere_,298Mont.358,2P.3d204(2000).Theonlyquestiononappealwas @ whethertheStateshouldbeallowedtoretrytheassaultand_kidnapping_Ԁchargesinlightofdefendantsargumentthattherewasinsufficientevidenceofguilt.TheSupremeCourtheldthattherewas,andthusremandedforanewtrial.#~%~=#  P#   IX.  DEPENDENTNEGLECTPROCEEDINGS q@   ~~    A.0 ` YouthinNeedofCare A0` (#` (#   #~~@#%~~ Inre  A.M.,2001MT60,304Mont.379,22P.3d185(DeerLodge).Affirmed;  ` Nelson,J. Motherwholeftherchildinthecareofagrandmotherclaimedthatthe ( x filthyconditionsinthegrandmothershousecouldnotbeabasisforafindingthatthechildwasabusedorneglected bythemother .TheSupremeCourtdisagreed, X  stating: [_T]he_ԀexigentprotectionofthehealthandwelfareofthechildisparamountwheretheStatesinitialinterventionintootherwiseprivatemattersrevealsanactualorpotentiallydangerousorunhealthyenvironmentrequiringremovalofthechildfromacustodial_caregiver_.Thus,thelegaldeterminationthatachildisayouthinneedofcareisfirstandforemostajurisdictionalprerequisiteforanycourtorderedtemporarytransferofcustody.Thecourtdistinguishedcasesrelieduponbythemotherforthepropositionthatshe,herself,musthavecommittedtheabuseorneglect.TheCourtacknowledgesthattheterms abuseandneglect_include_Ԁmorethanjustactualharm,butthreatenedharmaswell. #~%~A#%~~_  _Inre_J.L._ԀandD.L.,2000MT289,302Mont.254,14P.3d473(Fergus) ` (stateappeal)#~%~F#%~~.Affirmed#~%~G#%~~;Trieweiler,J. Thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseits x discretionwhenitconcludedthattheyouthswerenotyouthsinneedofcarebecause,eventhoughthefatherwasimplicatedinthemothersdeathhehidherbody,burieditinthemiddleofthenight,laterunearthedthebodyandburnedit,reportedthemotherasmissing,andtoldthechildrentheirmotherhadrunoffwithanothermaninthemiddleofthenightthedistrictcourtcorrectlyconcludedthatthechildrenwerenotemotionallyabusedbytheirfather.Rather,therewasevidenceintherecordtosupportthedistrictcourtsconclusionthatwhateveremotionalabusethechildrensufferedresultedfromtheirmothersmentalillness.Further,eventhoughthedistrictcourtconcludedthattheyouthswerenotinneedofcare,ithadauthoritytodismissDPHHSfromtheactionandretainjurisdictionofthecasebasedonastipulationofthefatherandthepaternalgrandparentsthatthecourtshouldretainjurisdictiontosupervisetheyouthsplacementwiththeirpaternalgrandparents. #~%~H# %~~  ($! __________   B.0 ` StandardofReview M` (#` (#   Inre  A.M.,2001MT60,304Mont.379,22P.3d185(DeerLodge).Affirmed; 0 Nelson,J. Thepreponderanceoftheevidencestandardappliedbyacourtatthe H investigativestagespursuanttoMont.CodeAnn.413404(1)doesnotcreateananomalyinsubsequentterminationproceedingsforpurposesofappellatereview.Onappeal,theSupremeCourtmustdecidewhethertheStateofferedclearandconvincingevidenceattheterminationproceedingsthatthedistrictcourtcorrectlyadjudicatedthechildayouthin_need_Ԁofcareundergoverningstatutes,i.e.,thatthecourthadnotexceededitsjurisdictionatanytimeinorderingthetemporarytransferofthechildscustodyuntilthemattercouldbefurtherreviewed. #~%~L#%~~_  _Inre_C.D.S._,_S.E.S._,and_T.M.S._,2000MT313,302Mont.466,14P.3d1248   (Yellowstone).Affirmed;Regnier,J. (_Turnage_,C.J.,Gray,J.,Trieweiler,J., 8  Leaphart,J.,concurring.)Thedistrictcourtsdecisiontoterminateparentalrightsarereviewedtodeterminewhetheritsfindingsoffactwereclearlyerroneousandwhetheritsconclusionsoflawwerecorrect.  Althoughapsychiatristandapsychologisttestifiedthatthetwoolderchildrenshouldbereturnedtotheappellantfatherscustody,theirtestimonywasambiguous,andtherewasother,substantialcredibleevidencesupportingtermination.Citing_  _Inre_E.W._,1998MT135,289Mont.190,959P.2d951,the  Courtstated, TheexistenceofsomeconflictingorambiguousevidencedoesnotprecludeafindingthatAppellantsconductorconditionrenderinghimunfittoprovideadequatecareisunlikelytochangewithinareasonabletime.12.#~%~TQ#%~~   InreC.A.,2000MT227,301Mont.233,8P.3d116(Yellowstone).Affirmed;  X Leaphart,J. Partyseekingterminationhas_burden_Ԁofprovingthatstatutory  !p criteriaaremet. #~%~V#%~~   C.0 ` StatutoryCriteriaforTermination Xh$` (#` (#  #~%~W#~~_  _InreF.M.andS.M.,2001MT93,305Mont.189,24P.3d208(LewisandClark).Affirmed;Gray,C.J. TheCourtheldthatthedistrictcourtdidnot '#  abuseitsdiscretioninterminatingthemothersparentalrightsonthebasisofMont.CodeAnn.  413609(1)(f)(thechildisa_YINC_,theparentshavenotcompliedwithatreatmentplan,andtheconductorconditionoftheparentsrenderingthemunfitisunlikelytochangewithinareasonabletime). (-x(% Thedistrictcourthadpreviouslyfoundthatthechildrenwereyouthsinneedofcareandthatthemotherfailedtosuccessfullycompletehertreatmentplan.Basedonevidencepresentedattheterminationhearing,thecourtfoundthatthemotherhadnotmadesignificantchangesanditwasinthechildrensbestinteresttoterminateherparentalrights.  TheCourtupheldthedistrictcourtsfindingthatthemothersconductorconditionwhichrenderedherunfittoparenthadnotchangedandwasnotlikelytochange.Whilesometestimonypresentedattheterminationhearingindicatedthatthemotherhadmadesomeprogress,nothingindicatedthatthechildrenwouldnotbesubjecttofurtherabuseorneglectifreturnedtothemotherscare.  TheCourtalsoupheldthedistrictcourtsfindingthatitwasinthechildrensbestinteresttoterminateherparentalrights.Inappealingthatfinding,themotherpointedtotestimonythatsomecontactwithherwouldbebeneficialforthechildren.TheCourtnotedthatthewitnessesadvocatingcontactalsounanimouslyrecommendedtermination,becausethechildrensoverridingneedforpermanencyandstabilitywasintheirbestinterest.#~~X#%~~ _  _Inre_J.W._Ԁand_K.D._,2001MT86,305Mont.149,23P.3d916(Gallatin). H Affirmed;Gray,C.J. (Leaphart,J.,Trieweiler,J.,Nelson,J.,Regnier,J., ` concurring)TheStateinitiallyobtainedtemporarylegalcustodyofthemother'stwochildreninMay1999,afterthemotherandherboyfriendwerearrestedintheirhomeforpossessionofdangerousdrugsanddrugparaphernalia.Themotherbeganatreatmentplan,butdisappearedtoavoidafederalarrestwarrant,andwasthenincarceratedforaboutsixteenmonths.Soonafterherrelease,theStatefiledtheterminationpetition.TheSupremeCourtaffirmedthetrialcourtjudgmentbasedontheevidencethatthemotherdidnotsubstantiallycompleteanyofthegoalsofhersecondtreatmentplan,andherconductwasunlikelytochangewithinareasonabletime.Themother'sproblemswentbeyondjustherchemicaldependencyissuesbecauseshehadnotdevelopedordinaryandnecessarycopingskillsandadaptiveabilities,andhadnotlearnednormalparentingabilities. #~%~`#%~~_  _Inre_M.W._Ԁand_C.S._,2001MT78,305Mont.80,23P.3d206(Lewisand &! Clark).Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Leaphart,J. Heatheristhe '#  naturalmotherof_M.W._Ԁand_C.S._ԀInNovember1995,HeatherenrolledherchildrenintheCaseyFamilyProgramandagreedthatthechildrensgrandmothershouldtakecareofthechildrenand_she_Ԁandhercurrenthusbandwouldcompletetreatmentplanssoherchildrencouldbereturnedtoher. (-x(% InMarch1996,Heatherenteredastipulationthatherchildrenwereyouthinneedofcare.TheStatedraftedatreatmentplanforHeatherinAugust1998.BasedonHeathersfailuretocompletethetreatmentplan,theStatefiledapetitionfortheterminationofHeathersparentalrights.ThecourtheldahearingonMarch2,1999,butbeforethecourtissuedarulingthechildrensgrandmotherunexpectedlydied.Heatherthenbeganworktocompletehertreatmentplaninanattempttoregaincustody.Asupplementalhearingwasheld.InJuly1999,thecourtissuedanorderinwhichitconcludedthatitwasinthechildrensbestinteresttoterminateHeathersparentalrights.Inlightoftheuniquefactsofthiscase,thedistrictcourtincorrectlyfoundthatthestipulationsufficedasanadjudicationthat_M.W_Ԁand_C.S._ԀwereyouthsinneedofcareinregardstoHeather.Withoutsuch_anadjudication_,thecourtlackedthejurisdictionalprerequisitetoterminateHeathersparentalrightspursuanttoMont.CodeAnn.  413609(e).TheCourtreversedthedistrictcourtsterminationofHeathersparentalrights. #~%~ e#%~~ Inre  C.B.and_J.B._,2001MT42,304Mont.252,20P.2d117(Madison). h Affirmed;Regnier,J. Onappealfollowingterminationoftheirparentalrightsto 0 _J.B._,theparentscontendedthatthedistrictcourtsdecisionwasnotsupportedbyclearandconvincingevidencethatthestatutorycriteriahadbeenmet.Theparentstimelyperformanceoftheirtreatmentresponsibilitieswasamaterialgoalofthetreatmentplan,andtherecordamplydemonstratedthattheparentsdidnotcompleteseveraltreatmentrequirementsinatimelymanner.Thedistrictcourtsdeterminationthattheconductandconditionoftheparentswereunlikelytochangewithinareasonabletimewasalsosupportedbythetestimonyofpsychologists,socialworkers,andcounselors.Someofthedistrictcourtsfindingswerepredicateduponcredibilitydeterminations,whichare exclusivelywithintheprovinceofthefinderoffactandwillnotbedisturbed...onappeal.Finally,theparentscontendedthatthedistrictcourterredinfindingthat_J.B._smotherhadlostcustodyofanotherchild.Althoughtherewasnoevidenceintherecordtosupportthedistrictcourtserroneousfinding, Itiswellestablishedthatnocivilcaseshallbereversedbyreasonoferrorwhichwouldhavenosignificantimpactupontheresult;_if_Ԁthereisnoshowingofsubstantialinjustice,theerrorisharmless.  ($!  #~%~m#%~~_  _InreC.F.,_H.F._,and_J.F._,2001MT19,304Mont.134,18P.3d1014  (LewisandClark).Affirmed;Leaphart,J. _J.F._sfather,Michael,appealed  theterminationofhisparentalrightsto_J.F._Ԁarguingthatthedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretionwhenitdeterminedthathehadnotsuccessfullycompletedhistreatmentplanandwouldnotbereasonabletoexpecthimtodosointhe_forseeable_Ԁfuture.Michaelhadbeeninprisonforalargeportionof_J.F._slife.Foraperiodduringtheyouthinneedofcareaction,Michaelwaslivingataprereleasecenter,anddidsubstantiallycomplywithhistreatmentplan.JustpriortoMichaelsparoleeligibilitydate,Michaelwasarrestedforviolatingtherulesoftheprereleasecenter.Hepledguiltytoseveninfractionsandwastransferredto_MSP_Ԁtoservetheremainderofhistwofiveyearconsecutivetermsforforgery.Attheterminationhearing,DPHHSpresentedevidencethatMichaelprobablywouldnotbeeligibleforparoleforatleastanotheryear.ThereissubstantialevidencetosupportthedistrictcourtsfindingthatMichaelscourtapprovedtreatmentplandidnotsucceedincreatingconditionsthatwouldallowhimtoprovideforthewelfareofhissonsince,despitecomplyingwithmanyofitsconditions,hefailedtoachieveothers.ThedistrictcourtdidnoterroneouslyfindthattheconductorconditionrenderingMichaelunfitwasunlikelytochangewithinareasonabletimesinceMichaelwouldprobablynotbeeligibleforanotherprereleaseprogramforaboutayear,anditwasnotin_J.F._sbestinteresttocontinuetowaitforapermanenthome.   InreS.M.,2001MT11,304Mont.102,19P.3d213(Yellowstone).Affirmed;  Nelson,J. Requirementsof_treatmentplan_Ԁmustnotonlybemet,buttreatment ( planmustbesuccessful.#~%~s# %~~Inre  _C.D.S._,_S.E.S._,and_T.M.S._,2000MT313,302Mont.466,#~%~|#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1248  !p (Yellowstone).Affirmed;Regnier,J. (_Turnage_,C.J.,_Gray,J._,Trieweiler,J., 8" Leaphart,J.,concurring.)Thedistrictcourtsdecisiontoterminateparentalrightsarereviewedtodeterminewhetheritsfindingsoffactwereclearlyerroneousandwhetheritsconclusionsoflawwerecorrect.  Althoughapsychiatristandapsychologisttestifiedthatthetwoolderchildrenshouldbereturnedtotheappellantfatherscustody,theirtestimonywasambiguous,andtherewasother,substantialcredibleevidencesupportingtermination.CitingInre  _E.W._,1998MT135,289Mont.190,959P.2d951,the )0%" Courtstated, TheexistenceofsomeconflictingorambiguousevidencedoesnotprecludeafindingthatAppellantsconductorconditionrenderinghimunfittoprovideadequatecareisunlikelytochangewithinareasonabletime.12. (-x(% #~%~}#  a InreB.F.,R.F.andM.S.Jr.,2000MT231,301Mont.281,8P.3d790  (Missoula).Affirmed;Regnier,J. Afourmemberpanelunanimouslyaffirmed  theterminationofM.F.sparentalrightstoheryoungestchild(shedidnotappealterminationastotheothertwochildren).TheCourtfoundclearandconvincingevidencetosupportthedistrictcourtsfindingthatM.F.didnotsuccessfullycomplywithhertreatmentplanandthattheconductrenderingherunfitwasunlikelytochangewithinareasonableperiodoftime.TheCourtbaseditsrulingonthemothersinabilitytofollowtherecommendationsoftheindividualandfamilytherapists,therepeatedtestimonyregardingherinabilitytoputherchildrensneedsbeforeherown(includingherhistoricalinabilitytoselectappropriatemalecompanionsandacceptresponsibilityforplacingherchildrenindangerouscircumstances),herinconsistenthistoryof_visitation_Ԁwithherson,andtestimonyfromthechildstherapistregardinghisneeds.%~~ Inre u C.A.,2000MT227,301Mont.233,8P.3d116(Yellowstone).Affirmed; P Leaphart,J. #~%~#%~~ԀTrialcourtproperlyterminatedparentalrightsafterconsidering h entirehistoryofcase. _  _Inre_T.Z._Ԁand_J.Z._,2000MT205,300Mont.522,6P.3d960(Broadwater). ` Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Onappeal,theyouthsmotherarguedthatwhenthe x districtcourtgrantedDPHHSlongtermlegalcustodyofthechildren,itdidso_based_Ԁonevidenceofferedinsupportofthepetitiontoterminateparentalrightsand,thus,therewasinsufficientevidencepresentedtosupportanawardoflong-termcustody.Thecourt,notingthatMont.CodeAnn.  413412(6)(c)(v)controlsanawardoflongtermcustody,heldthatthedistrictcourtmadesufficientlyspecificfindingstosupportitsawardoflongtermcustodyofthechildrentoDPHHS.ThemotheralsoarguedthatDPHHSwasrequiredtofileaseparatepetitionforlongtermcustodyinadditiontoitspetitiontoterminateparentalrights,inwhichitalternativelyrequestedpermanentcustodywithouttermination.TheCourtheldthatonepetitionwithalternativerequestsforreliefprovidedthemotherwithsufficientnoticeoftheissuestoberaisedatthehearing.#~%~# %~~  '#  XU   D.0 ` RequirementforTreatmentPlan t` (#` (#  #~%~#%~~8 Inre  _M.W._Ԁand_C.S._,2001MT78,305Mont.80,23P.3d206(LewisandClark). 0 Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Leaphart,J. Heatheristhenaturalmotherof H _M.W._Ԁand_C.S._ԀandJeremyisthenaturalfatherof_M.W._ԀJeremy,whowasconvictedofkillinghisgirlfriendandherchild,wassentencedtotwolifesentenceswithnoparoleeligibilityforsixtyyears.Jeremysincarcerationpresentedaninsurmountable,longtermimpedimenttohisabilitytoprovideforhischildsphysical,mentalandemotionalneeds.Therefore,thedistrictcourtdidnoterrwhenitdeterminedthatthefactsclearlyshowedatreatmentplanwasimpracticalandterminatedJeremysparentalrights.Inaddition,  Jeremywasnotentitledtoattend   thetwohearingswhichaddressedtheStatespetitiontoterminateHeathersparentalrights.TheCourtdeclinedtoadoptarulewhichwouldrequireaparenttobeallowedtotakepartinahearingtoterminatetheotherparentsrights.8 #~%~#    E.0 ` Miscellaneous Wh` (#` (# %~~Inre  A.M.,2001MT60,304Mont.379,22P.3d185(DeerLodge).Affirmed; H Nelson,J. Districtcourtdidnotviolate_mothers_Ԁdueprocessrightsbybasingits ` decisiontoterminateparentalrightsonthesupposedadjudicationofthechildasayouthinneedofcareatanearlierhearingwhere,atthetimeoftheearlierhearing,motherwasunrepresentedbycounselandwascivillycommittedtoamentalinstitution.Therecordshowedthatmotherwasrepresentedbycounselatsubsequentproceedingswherethesamedeterminationwasmaderegardingtheyouthsstatusasinneedofcare.#~%~#%~~ #~%~#%~~ Inre  _J.M._ԀJr.,2001MT51,304Mont.303,21P.3d618(Yellowstone).  !p Affirmed;Regnier,J. Motherwasprovidedwitha BabyThinkitOverDoll 8" whichwasoutfittedwithacontrolmoduleprogrammedtorespondtoincidentsofneglectorabuse.Whilein_mothers_Ԁpossession,thedollrecordedoneincidentofabuse.TheStatelatersoughttoterminatemothersrightsforfailingtocompletehertreatmentplan.Atthehearing,theStateintroducedevidenceregardingthedollabuseincidentovercounselsobjectionthatinsufficientfoundationexistedforitsadmission.TheSupremeCourtfounderror,concludingthattheStatefailedtoshow,giventhebasisfortermination,howtheevidencehadatendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactofconsequenceeithermoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence,andbecausetheStatefailedtoproduceevidenceofthedollsreliability.ButtheCourtdeemedtheerrorharmlessandaffirmedtheorderoftermination. @.)& UH U  X U  #~%~#%~~_  _In_re_ԀA.W.,2000MT311,302Mont.447,14P.3d1252(_Musselshell_).  Affirmed;Regnier,J. Thisisthesecondappealinthiscase.Intheoriginal  action,theStatesuspectedthatthreeminorchildrenwereneglected,abused,ordependent,andsoinitiatedproceduresagainstthechildren'sparents,aprosperousbankerfamily.ThisproceedingculminatedintheSupremeCourtsdecision,reportedat  InreInquiryintoA.W.,1999MT42,293Mont.358,975P.2d1250, ( x holdingthatthedistrictcourthadnostatutoryauthoritytoordertheGroves,whowerethesubjectofparentalneglectorabuseinvestigation,toreimbursethecountyforcostsandfeesoftheguardianadlitem.Thus,theCourtreversedthe p  orderofthedistrictcourtwhichrequiredtheGrovestoreimbursethecountyforthoseservices. h Onremand,theGrovesaskedfor,butweredenied,$5,000in   appealtranscriptcostsunder  Mont.R.App.P. i 33(c)whichallowssuchcostsonlyiftheappealtranscriptwasnecessaryforthedeterminationoftheappeal.TheCourtaffirmedthedistrictcourtsdenialholdingthattheappealtranscriptswereunnecessarygiventhatthecruxoftheGrovesclaimsinthefirstappealonlyinvolvedlegalissues,whetherornottheGrovesbelievedtheyneededtocitetothetranscripts.  0 #~%~#%~~Inre u C.A.,2000MT227,301Mont.233,8P.3d116(Yellowstone).Affirmed; ` Leaphart,J. #~%~#%~~ԀTrialcourtproperlyterminatedparentalrightsafterconsidering x entirehistoryofcase.#~%~y#%~~#~%~+#     X.  LICENSEREVOCATIONPROCEEDINGS      ! InreMcKenzie,2001MT25,304Mont.153,19P.3d221(Fergus).Affirmed; 0 Regnier,J. Apersonsrefusaltosubmittoportablebreathtest(_PBT_)issufficient H tojustifylicensesuspensionforsixmonths. Statev. " Simmons,2000MT329,___Mont.___,15P.3d408(_Stillwater_). @  Affirmed;_Turnage_,C.J. Montanasimpliedconsentstatutesdonotrequire X  officertoinform_nonresidentdriver_Ԁoframificationsofarefusaltotakerequestedtest.L /:(#L      XI.  JUVENILES #  %~~_ $ _Statev._Lesmeister_,2000MT318,302Mont.500,15P.3d392(Cascade). 0 Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Whenhewaseighteenyearsofage,_Lesmeister_syouth H courtdispositionwastransferredtodistrictcourtpursuanttoMont.CodeAnn. & 415208forprobationarysupervisionuntilagetwentyfive.Followingapetitiontorevoke,thedistrictcourtcommittedhimtotheDOCuntilagetwenty-five,withalltimesuspended.Followingtwomorepetitionstorevoke,thecourtrevokedthesuspendedcommitmenttotheDOC.Onappeal,heclaimedthedistrictcourtlackedtheauthoritytocommithimtotheDOC.TheSupremeCourtdeterminedthatthedistrictcourthastheauthoritytorevokethesuspendedcommitmenttotheDOC, [_b]ased_Ԁontheplainlanguageof[Mont.CodeAnn. ( 4618201(3)(d)(i)].#~%~o#  P X  L 0J((/L -XII.  MENTALCOMMITMENT ݬ  8_ * _%~~Statev._Wooster_Ԁ(II),2001MT4,304Mont.56,16P.3d409(SilverBow). 0 Affirmed;Leaphart,J. In_Wooster_ԀI,theSupremeCourtadoptedanaffirmative H definitionofmentaldiseaseordefect,andremandedthecaseforconsiderationof_Wooster_spetitionforreleasefromMSHunderthenewdefinition.Onremand,stateanddefenseexpertsagreed_Wooster_Ԁsufferedfromamentaldiseaseordefectandthedistrictcourtdeniedthepetition.Inhissecondappeal,_Wooster_Ԁagainassertedthathisantisocialpersonalitydisorderwasexcludedfromthedefinitionofmentaldiseaseordefect.Becausethatissuewasresolvedagainst_Wooster_Ԁinthefirstappeal,itwasnowlawofthecase.Thedistrictcourtsfindingthat_Wooster_sufferedfromamentaldiseaseordefectundertheaffirmativedefinitionwassupportedbysubstantialevidenceandwasaffirmedaccordingly.  _Wooster_Ԁalsoclaimedthatthedistrictcourtfailedtoconsiderconditionalreleaseasanalternativetosecureconfinement.TheCourtrejectedtheclaimaslackingsupportintherecord.Neitherthestatenorthedefenseexpertsupportedaconditionalreleasefor_Wooster_.Thedistrictcourtimplicitlyrejectedaconditionalreleasefor_Wooster_Ԁbyitsfindingthat_Wooster_scontinuedsecurecommitmentwasappropriatesinceheposesanunreasonableriskofdangertohimselfandothers.Asthisfindingwassupportedbythesubstantialcredibleevidence,theorderdenying_Wooster_spetitionfordischargeorreleasefromMSHwasaffirmed. #~%~έ# %~~_ , _InreMentalHealthofS.C.,2000MT370,57State_Rptr_.1584,15P.3d861  (LewisandClark).Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Paranoidschizophrenicclaimedshe ( hadacommonlawrighttorefusemedication.TheCourtruledthatnosuchrightexits.ResolutionoftheissueofS.C.'sinvoluntarymedicationpivotedonpurelystatutorygrounds.Further,althoughthedistrictcourtdidnotspecificallystatewhyinvoluntarymedicationwaschosen,readingthecourt'sotherdetailedfindingsshowswhythedistrictcourtconcludedthatinvoluntarymedicationwastheleastrestrictiveandmostappropriatealternative.Therefore,thedistrictcourtcompliedwithallstatutoryrequirementsfororderinginvoluntarymedication.  N.B.:TheCourtappliedthedoctrineofimpliedfindingsforpurposesofreviewingfindingsoffact.Thatdoctrineprovidesthatwherethefindingsaregeneralinterms,anyfindingsnotspecificallymade,butnecessarytothedetermination,aredeemedtohavebeenimplied,ifsupportedbytheevidence.ThesignificanceofthiscaseisthattheCourtsaidthedistrictcourt'sspecificfindingsprovided aclearrationalefororderinginvoluntarymedication.Thisholdingmightbeusefulinfutureappealswhereadistrictcourt'sorderischallengedforomissionsbutaclearrationaleappearsfromotherdetails.#~%~ص#  @.)& -L -  X -  8  8   XIII.  CONSTITUTIONALISSUES m   8   0`     A. ` DueProcess/EqualProtection 0` `   %~~ Inre  _M.W._Ԁand_C.S._,2001MT78,305Mont.80,23P.3d206#~%~#%~~(Lewisand  ` Clark).Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Leaphart,J. Heatheristhenatural ( x motherof_M.W._Ԁand_C.S._ԀJeremyisthenaturalfatherof_M.W._ԀJeremy,whowasconvictedofkillinghisgirlfriendandherchild,wassentencedtotwolifesentenceswithnoparoleeligibilityforsixtyyears.ThecourtwasnotrequiredtoprovideJeremywithanopportunitytoscrutinizeandchallengetheevidenceand_witnesses_Ԁpresentedatthepermanencyplanhearingsheldpriortothehearingtoterminatehisparentalrights.Dueprocessrequiresonlythattheparentshavecounselpriortothepermanentcustodyhearings,itdoesnotrequirethattheyhavecounselduringtheinitialstagesoftheproceedings.Thecourt,therefore,wasnotrequiredtoprovideJeremywithanopportunitytoscrutinizeandchallengetheevidenceandwitnessespresentedatthepermanencyplanhearingsheldpriortothehearingtoterminatehisparentalrights.#~%~_#%~~ Statev.  _LaDue_,2001MT47,304Mont.288,20P.3d775(SilverBow). ` Affirmed;Nelson,J. Thedefendantscontentionthathisconstitutionalrightto x presentadefensewasviolatedwhenthedistrictcourtdeniedhismotiontocalladditionalwitnesseswaswaivedonappealbecausehefailedtoobjectonthatgroundattrial. State_v._Ԁ i Hubbel,2001MT31,304Mont.184,20P.3d111(Ravalli).Affirmed @ inpart,remanded;Nelson,J. Thedistrictcourtdidnotviolatethedefendants  X dueprocessrights,i.e.,byallegedlypunishinghimforsuccessfullyappealinghisfirstconviction,State_v._Ԁ  Hubbel,951P.2d971(1997),byreducingtheamountof 8" timetobesuspendedfromhisfirstsentencetohissecondsentence.Thiswasnotdoneoutofvindictiveness,buttoinsurethatthedefendanthadsufficienttimetocompletethevariousprogramswhichthecourthadordered.Thedistrictcourtsconcernforthedefendantsrehabilitationwasaconstitutionallylegitimatereasonforsuspendinglesstimeupon_reconviction_.#~%~#%~~  ($!  #~%~~#%~~State_v._Ԁ  Duffy,2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453(_Stillwater_).  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Duffywasconvictedoftwocountsofsexual  intercoursewithoutconsentandtwocountsofincest.DuffydoesnothavestandingtoclaimthattheminimumprisontermsofMont.CodeAnn. . 45-5-503(3)(a)and507(4)violatedhisrighttoequalprotectionwhenhewassentencedtogreaterthanthemandatoryminimumsentencebasedonthecourtsindependentdeterminationofthemagnitudeoftheoffenses.#~%~#0   B.0` (#(#FourthAmendment p ` (#` (# %~~ State_v._Ԁ / Roper,2001MT96,___Mont.___,___P.3d___(SilverBow).   Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Roper,whowasservingasuspendedsentencefora   drugoffense,wassubjecttoacourtorderedsearchclause,aswellasaconsensualsearchclause.Subsequently,RoperwasconditionallydischargedfromstatesupervisionpursuanttoMont.CodeAnn. 0 46231011(6),thepurposeofwhichwastotakeadvantageofmoreintensivefederalsupervision.However,followingtheconditionaldischarge,theDOCinformedRoperhewouldremainonprobationarystatusthroughSeptember2001,andwouldbesubjecttowarrantlesssearchesanddrugtesting.Thereafter,RopersstateprobationofficerobtainedinformationfromtwootherprobationersthatRoperwasusingandsellingdrugs.Thisinformationwasconfirmedbyotherlawenforcementagencies,andincludedindicationthatRoperwassellingdrugsoutofablackleatherpouch.WhentheprobationofficerandotherpoliceofficersobservedRoperoutsidehisworkplace,inwhatappearedtobeadrugtransaction,Ropersworkplacewassearched.Thesearchresultedinthediscoveryofablackleatherpouch,whichwasfoundinplainviewinRopersexclusiveworkarea.Thepouchcontainedmethamphetamine.OnappealtheCourtheldthattheconditionaldischargeorderdidnotvoidtheprobationofficersauthoritybecauseRoperwasinformedbytheStatethatheremainedonprobationandsubjecttowarrantlesssearchesifreasonablecauseexisted.Here,theofficerhadreasonablecause.TheCourtalsorejectedRoperscontentionthattheprobationofficerssearchauthorityonlyextendedtoasearchofhisperson,residence,orautomobile,andnottoRopersworkplace,notingthatinBostontheCourt upheldasearchofagarageaspartofalawfulresidence '#  searcheventhoughthegaragewasseparatefromthepropertythattheresidencewaslocatedon.Therefore,theofficerhadthelawfulrighttosearchRopersworkareaandtoseizetheapparentlyincriminatingpouch,whichwasinplainviewinanareaoverwhichRoperhadexclusivecontrol. (-x(%  Statev. 1 _Farabee_,2000MT265,302Mont.29,22P.3d175(LewisandClark.)  Affirmed;Regnier,J. Officerstopped_defendants_Ԁvehiclebelievingthatitwas  missingaheadlight.Defendantarguedthatthestopwasunjustifiedbecauseitwasbroaddaylightandofficercouldnothavebeencertainabouttheheadlightsfunctioning.SupremeCourtrejectedthisargument,aswellasdefendantsclaimthatthestopwaspretextualbecauseparticularizedsuspiciondoesnotrequire certainty onthepartoftheofficer. @  #~%~#%~~ Statev. 2 _Reesman_,2000MT243,301Mont.408,10P.3d83(Gallatin). p  Reversedandremanded;Nelson,J. Officersobtainedawarranttosearcha   trailerinwhich_Reesman_Ԁoccupiedabedroombasedoninformationfromaconfidentialinformantwhostatedthatshepersonallyobservedmarijuanagrowinginabedroomclosetbelongingtooneofthetrailersotheroccupants.Thewarrantapplicationattemptedtocorroboratetheinformantstipwithinformationfromananonymouscitizen(whohadprovidedreliableinformationinthepast)thatthe_grow_Ԁoperationhadbeeninexistenceformorethanoneyear.Therewasnoinformationaboutwhetherthiswasbasedonpersonalobservationorunderwhat_circumstances_Ԁofficersreceivedthepriorreliableinformation.Officersconfirmedthelocationofthetraileridentifiedbytheconfidentialinformant,butdidnothingmoretocorroboratetheinformationprovided.̀  TheSupremeCourtheldthatunderthesefacts,therewasinsufficient  probablecausetojustifyissuanceofthewarrant.TheCourtmappedoutathreepronginquiryinplaceofthetraditionaltwoparttestfromIllinois_v._ԀGates,to  determinebasisofknowledgeandreliability.Theinquiryisasfollows:(1)Istheinformantanonymous?Ifso,independentcorroborationoftheinformationisrequired.(2)Ifnot,istheinformantsinformationbasedonpersonalobservation?Ifitisnot,independentcorroborationisrequired.(3)Iftheinformationwas  !p gleanedfrompersonalobservationofanonanonymousinformant,istheinformantareliablesourceofinformation(i.e.,aswornstatementbylawenforcementthatthepersonhasprovidedreliableinformationinthepast,thepersonmakesanadmissionagainstinterest,orthepersonisaconcernedcitizen).Withrespecttothethirdinquiry,theCourtfocusesonthereliabilityofthe informant notthereliabilityofthe information itself,whichisadeviationfrom '#  Gates.Ifreliabilitycantbeshownbythesemethods,independentcorroboration ($! isrequired. (-x(%   Applyingthisanalysistothefactshere,theCourtfoundthefirsttworequirementssatisfiedwithrespecttotheconfidentialinformant#~%~#%~~sinformation.  However,therewasnoshowingofherreliability.Theanonymoustipwasinsufficientbecausethattip,itself,requiredfurthercorroborationbeforeitcouldbeusedtocorroboratetheCIsinformation.Inotherwords,youcantuseanuncorroboratedtiptocorroborateanotheruncorroboratedtip.#~%~q# 0   C.0` (#(#FifthAmendment/PrivilegeAgainstSelfIncrimination X ` (#` (#  %~~ Statev.  Hill(_Kippy_ԀJoe),2000MT308,302Mont.415,#~%~#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1237(Ravalli).   Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. _Hill_Ԁclaimedthathisvideotapedstatementwas   involuntary,arguingthattheMirandawarningswereinadequatebecausethe   demeanoroftheofficerswasmisleading,therewasinsufficientdiscussionofhisconstitutionalrights,theofficersusedcoercivetactics,hisrepeatedattemptstoendtheinterviewwereignored,andhelackedthementalcapacitytoknowinglywaivehisrights.TheCourtcitedState_v._Ԁ  Hermes,273Mont.446,904P.2d587 h (1995),whichstatedseveralfactorstobeconsideredwhendeterminingthevoluntarinessofaconfessionunderthetotalityofthecircumstances.Thosefactorswere(1)thedefendantsageandlevelofeducation;(2)theinterrogationtechnique;(3)theadvisementofMirandarights;(4)thedefendantsprior x experiencewiththepolice;and(5)thedefendantsownbackgroundandexperience.HillreliedonState_v._Ԁ  Allies,186Mont.99,606P.2d1043(1979),  tosupporthisclaimthatthepoliceusedcoercivetactics.TheCourtnotedthatHillhadslightlybelowaverageintelligence,buttherecordshowedhewascapableofunderstanding.TheCourtdistinguishedAlliesfromthiscase,notingthatHill @ knewfromthebeginningthathewasasuspect;_he_Ԁwasinterviewedthedaythevictimsbodywasdiscovered;_he_Ԁlaterchangedhisstatementtodeflectsuspicionwhenhereturnedtothestationafewdayslatertohavehairsamplestaken;_he_receivedadequateMirandawarningsjustbeforetheinterview;_he_Ԁwasfully P# coherentduringtheinterview;_he_Ԁwasnotmisledabouttheevidenceagainsthim;_and_,althoughtheofficersappealedtohismorality,theydidnotpromiseorthreatenanyparticulartreatment.Hilldidnotrequestanattorney,butaskedtoseehiswifeandchildren,whichdidnot,inthecontextofthisinterview,appeartobeanattempttoseeklegaladvice.Hedidnotspecificallyrequestthattheinterviewterminate,andhewasbroughtwaterwhenherequestedit.Hillalsohad_had_Ԁsomeexposuretothepolicefromearliermisdemeanors.#~%~U#  *H&#   ,`'$ 8   D. `   ` RightofConfrontation     %~~ Statev. 3 Jenkins,2001MT79,___State_Rptr_.___,___P.3d___(Lewisand 0 Clark).Affirmed;Leaphart,J. (Gray,_C.J._,Trieweiler,J.,Regnier,J., H Nelson,J.,concurring).Jenkinsfiledapostconvictionreliefpetitionallegingineffectivenessbecausedefensecounselobjectedonlyonevidentiarygrounds,notdenialoffederalconfrontationalgrounds,tohearsaypriorinconsistentstatementsof_witness_.ThewitnesshadAlzheimersrelatedmemorylossandeitherfailedtorecallearlierstatementsorretractedstatementsoncrossexamination.Thedistrictcourt,havingruledthewitnesswascompetenttotestify,despitementaldeficits,heldthatadmissionofthepriorinconsistentstatementsdidnotviolateJenkinsconfrontationalrightsbecausethewitnesswasavailabletotestifyandwassubjectedtounrestrictedcrossexamination.TheCourtnotedithadadoptedthelanguageandholdingofUnitedStates_v._Ԁ 4 Owens,484U.S.554 8  (1988),inStatev. 5 Maier,1999MT51,293Mont.403,977P.2d298: P 8   ` TheConfrontationClauseincludesnoguaranteethateverywitnesscalledbytheprosecutionwillrefrainfromgivingtestimonythatismarredbyforgetfulness,confusion,orevasion.Tothecontrary,theConfrontationClauseisgenerallysatisfiedwhenthedefenseisgivenafullandfairopportunitytoprobeandexposetheseinfirmitiesthroughcross-examination,therebycallingtotheattentionofthe_factfinder_Ԁthereasonsforgivingscantweighttothewitness'testimony.    8   ` ....    8   ` Itissufficientthatthedefendanthastheopportunitytobringoutsuchmattersasthewitness'bias,hislackofcareandattentiveness,hispooreyesight,andeven(whatisoftenaprimeobjectiveofcross-examination)theveryfactthathehasabadmemory.     4 Owens,484U.S.at55859,citedby 3 Jenkinsat19.Ofthewitness,theCourt &! saidthat,underOwens,Jenkinsconfrontationalrightwassatisfiedbyhis '#  opportunitytocrossexaminethewitnessanddemonstratethewitnessunreliablememory.ItaffirmedthedistrictcourtsrulingthatJenkinswasnotdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.#~%~#  ,`'$  %~~V*Statev. S Hart,2000MT332,___State_Rptr_.___,15P.3d917(Yellowstone).  Affirmedinpart,vacatedinpart;Regnier,J. Hartbrutallybeathisnieceabout  herfacewithastunguninherownhomeaftershetriedtodefendherfriendwhowasoffendedbyHartsoffensivecomment.TheCourtrefusedtoinvoketheplainerrordoctrineandrefusedtoreviewthemeritsofHart'sclaimthattheprosecutorimpermissiblycommentedthatHartexercisedhisrighttobepresentattrialwhichprovidedhimanopportunitytofabricatehistestimonybasedonthetestimonyoftheState'switnesses.TheCourtheldthatitwasnotatall"manifest"thatHart'sconvictionwastheresultoftheallegederror. Wewillcontinuetouseourinherentpowerofplainerrorreviewsparinglyandonlyinexceptionalcasesmeeting[_theFinley_]...criteria.TheCourthintedabouthowitmightrulehadtheobjectionbeenpreserved,stating Althoughwehaveneverheldthatadefendant'srighttomeetadversewitnessesfacetofaceisimplicatedduringaprosecutor'sclosingarguments,itisconceivablethatan_accused's_Ԁrighttoface-to-faceconfrontationcouldbeburdenedbyallowingsummationcommentswhichnegativelyremarkontheaccused'spresenceduringthetestimonyofadversewitnesses.#~%~d#    E.0 ` RighttoCounsel/EffectiveAssistance v`` (#` (#  %~~ _ 7 _Statev._Aliff_,2001MT52,304Mont.310,21P.3d624(LewisandClark).  Affirmed;Nelson,J. Trialcounselisnotineffectiveforfailingtoofferajury  instructionthatisinconsistentwiththedefense. Sincethedefendantfailedto  provethefirstStricklandprongincompetentperformance,itwasnotnecessary ( toaddressthesecondprongprejudice. State_v._Ԁ 8 Gallagher,2001MT39,304Mont.215,19P.3d817(Cascade).  !p Affirmed;Leaphart,J. Gallaghersfirstappealwasremandedforahearingto 8" determinethevalidityofhiscomplaintsabouthisattorney.ThedistrictcourtaffirmeditspreviousdenialofGallaghersrequestforsubstitutecounsel.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingtherequest.AlthoughGallagherandhisattorneydisagreedaboutwhatdefensewouldbepresentedattrial,Gallagherdidnotcarryhisburdenofprovingatotallackofcommunicationnecessaryforappointmentofnewcounsel.Whileadefendanthastherighttomeaningfulrepresentation,hedoesnothavearighttoameaningfulattorneyclientrelationship.#~%~#%~~ (-x(%  #~%~#%~~State_v._Ԁ i Hubbel,2001MT31,304Mont.184,20P.3d111(Ravalli).Affirmed  inpart,remanded;Nelson,J. Trialcounselwasnotineffectiveforfailingto  requesta failuretoagreeinstructionasallowedby : 4616607(3). < State_v._ 0  = Robbins,1998MT297,292Mont.23,971P.2d359,didnotholdthatuseofthe H  failuretoagreeinstructionwasmandatory.ThedefendantfailedtosustainhisburdenofdemonstratingthefirstStricklandprongincompetentperformance ( x becauseasilentrecordcannotovercomethestrongpresumptionthatdefensecounselmadealldecisionsintheexerciseofreasonableprofessionaljudgment.Becausethefirstprongwasnotdemonstrated,theCourtneednotreachthesecondStricklandprong-prejudice.    #~%~ #%~~State_v._Ԁ  St.John,2001MT1,304Mont.47,15P.3d970(DeerLodge).   Affirmed;Nelson,J. St.Johnhasnotshownhisdefensecounselwas   constitutionallyineffectiveforfailingtopreserveclaimsforappellatereview.St.Johnpresentsasilentrecordregardinghiscounselsomissions.Further,St.Johnhasnotshownorallegedthattheresultofthecourtssentencingwouldhavebeenanydifferentbutforcounsel'sallegederrorinnotobjecting.  N.B.:ThisopinionprovidessomeoftheCourtsstrongestlanguageregardingtheproblemof silentrecordreviewof_IAC_Ԁclaims: Whentherecorddoesnotprovidethebasisforthechallengedactsoromissionsofcounsel,adefendantclaimingineffectiveassistanceofcounselmoreappropriatelymakeshisclaimsinapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.[Citations_omitted_.]Accordingly,becausewecannotaddressthisaspectofSt.John'sineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimwithoutconsideringmattersoutsidetherecord,wedeclinetoreviewthisissuefurther.#~%~V #  @ %~~Statev.   _Cady_,2000MT353,___Mont.___,#~%~y#%~~Ԁ15P.3d479(Ravalli).Affirmed;  !p Gray,J. TheMontanaSupremeCourtaffirmedthedistrictcourtsdismissalof 8" _Cady_spostconvictionineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaims._Cady_Ԁallegedhiscounselwasineffectivebecausecounselfailedtomovetowithdrawhispleaafter_Cady_Ԁallegedlytoldcounselhehadbeendiagnosedasschizophrenicandaskedcounseltomovetowithdrawtheplea.Duringthepostconvictionhearing,counseltestifiedthatthefirsttimeanissueofschizophreniaorothermentalillnessarosewasin_Cady_spostconvictionpetition.Thedistrictcourtinweighingthecredibilityofwitnessesfoundthatcounselwasnotinformedofanypsychiatricissues,muchlessthat_Cady_Ԁhadbeendiagnosedasaparanoidschizophrenic.TheCourtchosenottodisturbthedistrictcourtsfinding,concludingthatitwassupportedbysubstantialevidenceandwasnotclearlyerroneous. (-x(% V*S V  V    _Cady_ԀalsoarguedthatcounselsperformancewasdeficientbecausecounselallowedthedistrictcourttosentencehimwithoutpresentinghisFortHarrisonmedicalrecordsregardinghismentalhealthproblems.Therecordrevealedthatcounseldidmakeattemptstoacquireallof_Cady_smedicalrecords,buttheonlyoneshereceivedfromFortHarrisonconcerned_Cady_ssubstanceabuseandherniaproblem.AfterreviewingtheFortHarrisonmedicalrecordswhichwerenotprovidedtocounsel,thedistrictcourtfoundthat_Cady_Ԁhadnotbeendiagnosedasaparanoidschizophrenic,themedicalstaffatFortHarrisonbelievedhewasmentallycompetent,andthat_Cady_Ԁfailedtoestablishasamatteroflawreliablefactstosupporthisclaimoflackofmentalcapacity.TheMontanaSupremeCourt,inaffirmingthedistrictcourtsdenialof_Cady_sclaimagain,heldthatthedistrictcourtsfindingsweresupportedbysubstantialevidenceintherecordandwerenotclearlyerroneous.%%~   #%~%##~%~#%~~ Statev.   _Dyfort_,2000MT338,___Mont.___,15P.3d464(Missoula). > Dismissedwithoutprejudice;Regnier,J. Inthisdirectappealofacriminal V conviction,thedefendantraisedaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel._Dyfort_Ԁallegedthathiscounsel,Larry_Mansch_,wronglyallowedtheStatetouse_Dyfort_'saccomplice's_Alford_Ԁpleaassubstantiveevidenceof_Dyfort_'sguiltwithoutaskingthetrialjudgetogivethejuryacautionaryinstruction.TheStateargued,andtheCourtagreed,thattheallegationcouldnotberesolvedontherecord.BasedontheCourt'sdecisionin ? Hagen_v._ԀState,1999MT8,10,293Mont.60,  973P.2d233,since_Dyfort_'sallegationwasnotresolvableontherecord,theCourtdismissedtheappealwithoutprejudice.  N.B.:Inperhapstheclearestpronouncementtodateonwhatconstitutesarecordbased_IAC_Ԁclaim,theCourtstated: Aclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselisbasedontherecordandmustberaisedondirectappealiftheallegationscanbeestablishedanddisprovedonfactsthatcanbedocumentedsolelyfromtherecordpresentedonappeal.#~%~,#  >#  %~~ State_v._Ԁ ~ Turner,2000MT270,302Mont.69,#~%~}"#%~~Ԁ12P.3d934(Dawson).Affirmed; n%  Hunt,J. Turnerfiledapostconvictionpetitionchallenginghis1988convictions &! fordeliberatehomicide(threecounts),felonyassault(twocounts),andaggravatedburglary.Heclaimedthat(1)hispleaswereinvoluntarybecausecounseldidnotadequatelyadvisehimregardingpossiblepunishment(heclaimedhepledguiltytoavoidthedeathpenaltyand,infact,deathwasnotarealisticpunishment); -f(% (2)counselshouldnothaveallowedtheStatetobeprivytothepsychiatricevaluationinviolationof  _Ake_Ԁv.Oklahoma;and(3)counseldidnotadequately  presentmitigatingevidenceatsentencing.ThedistrictcourtrejectedtheseclaimsandtheSupremeCourtaffirmedthedenialofpostconvictionreliefonappeal.ThemostsignificantaspectofthiscaseistheCourtsclarificationofthestandardofreviewfor_IAC_Ԁclaimsonapostconvictionappeal.Since_IAC_Ԁisamixedquestionoflawandfact,citing A _Iaea_Ԁv._Sunn_,800F.2d861(9thCir.1986),the @  Courtadoptedadenovostandardofreviewfortheseclaimsonappeal.#~%~!##%~~ State_v._Ԁ B Swan,2000MT246,301Mont.439,10P.3d102(Missoula).   Affirmed;_Turnage_,C.J. %XjX%~Ԁ#%~X%Xj)#ԀCounselwasappointedtorepresentSwan,whowas   chargedwithdeliberatehomicide._Swan_Ԁthenfiledaprose MotiontoDismissCourtAppointedCounselinwhichhemadecomplaintsabouttheeffectivenessofappointedcounselandaskedtobeallowedtoproceedprose.Whenthecourtinquiredaboutthemotionatthenexthearing,Swanstatedthathewasactuallyhopingthecourtwouldappointadifferentattorney.Althoughthemotionwasdeniedbythedistrictcourt,threenewattorneyswereassignedbytheP.D.torepresentSwan.Followinghisconviction,Swanclaimedonappealthatthedistrictcourtviolatedhisconstitutionalrighttoselfrepresentation.TheSupremeCourtaffirmed,holdingthatSwansrequestwas anythingbutunequivocalashemadeitclearthatwhathewas actuallyhopingforwastohavedifferentcounselappointedtorepresenthim.#~%~(#%~~ State_v._Ԁ 1 Davis,2000MT199,300Mont.450,5P.3d547(Missoula).Affirmed; ( Trieweiler,J. Thejurywasinstructedontheissueofflight.CitingState_v._Ԁ I Hall, @ 1999MT297,293Mont.224,#~%~-#%~~991P.2d929,Davisarguedthattheflight  X instructionwasimproperbecauseitwasanunnecessarycommentontheevidencebythedistrictcourt.InHall,theCourtheldthatflightinstructionsshouldno 8" longerbegivenbecausetheyareunnecessarycommentsontheevidence.Here,theCourtrejectedDavissclaimbecause,whileheobjectedtotheflightinstruction,hedidnotdosoonthegroundsthatitwasanimpropercommentontheevidence.TheCourtheldthatDavisslackofaspecificobjectionresultedinhiswaivingappellatereviewofhisflightinstructionclaim.  TheCourtalsoheldthattheinstructiononflightwasnotprejudicialbecausetherewassufficientevidencethatflighthadtakenplaceandbecausethejuryinstructioncontainedthequalificationthatflightitselfwasnotsufficientevidenceofguilt.TheCourtaddressedtheprejudiceissue inanticipationofaclaimthatcounselwasineffectivefornotmakingtheproperobjection. (-x(% #~%~n/# *G*8   0`     F. ` DoubleJeopardy 4` `  %~~State_v._Ԁ S Hart,2000MT332,___Mont.___,15P.3d917(Yellowstone). 0 Affirmedinpart,vacatedinpart;Regnier,J. Hartbrutallybeathisnieceabout H herfacewithastunguninherownhomeaftershetriedtodefendherfriendwhowasoffendedbyHartsoffensivecomment.TheCourtvacatedtheenhancedportionofHart'ssentenceandremandedthecaseforentryofanewjudgment.TheStateconcededthatStatev.  _Guillaume_,1999MT29,293Mont.224, X  #~%~4#%~~975P.2d312,requiresthatthiscaseberemandedtothedistrictcourtfor p  _resentencing_ԀHartwithoutapplicationoftheweaponenhancementstatute.#~%~C7#        G.0 ` ExPostFacto 8 ` (#` (# %~~State_v._Ԁ  Duffy,2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453(_Stillwater_). 8  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Duffywasconvictedoftwocountsofsexual P intercoursewithoutconsentandtwocountsofincest.ThelegislativechangeinthestatuteoflimitationswhichappliedtoDuffysoffensesdidnotviolatetheexpostfactoprovisionsofthestateandfederalconstitutionsbecausethestatuteof_limitations_ԀstatutewasamendedbeforetheoriginalstatuteoflimitationsapplicabletoDuffysconductexpired.Itwasaproceduralchangewhichneitherredefinedtheoffensenorchangedthepunishment.#~%~8# 8   0`     H. ` SpeedyTrial "<` `  ~~Statev. = _Haser_,2001MT6,304Mont.63,20P.3d100(Missoula).Affirmedin @ part,reversedinpart;Nelson,J. Haserownedaphotographystudioin  X Missoulaandwasaccusedofsexuallytouchinghismodelsundertheguiseof Itsallforthephotos.Ajuryconvictedhimofsexualassaultwithregardtoseveralvictimsandofsexualintercoursewithoutconsentwithregardtotwoofthevictims.Haserappealedthedistrictcourtsdenialsofhismotiontodismissforlackofspeedytrialandhismotionfordirectedverdictbasedoninsufficiencyoftheevidenceonthesexualintercoursewithoutconsentcount.TheCourtaffirmedonthespeedytrialissueandreversedontheinsufficiencyoftheevidenceissue.80  _Haser_Ԁfirstarguedthatthecourtmiscalculatedthelengthofthedelay($!## attributabletotheState.TheCourtheldthat,sincethedelayexceeded275daysundereithercalculationandthattheburdenproperlyshiftedtotheStatetoestablishthat_Haser_Ԁhadnotbeenprejudiced,_Haser_sargumentthatthemiscalculationconstitutederrorunderthe reasonforthedelayprongiswithoutmerit. (-x(% *V     TheCourtheldthatoneoftheprimaryfunctionsofthe reasonforthedelayprongistoconclusivelyestablishaburdenshiftforthedeterminationofprejudice.TheCourtfurthernotedthatithasnotestablishedathresholdnumberofdaysofdelaythatconclusivelyestablishesthedenialoftherighttospeedytrialandHaserdidnotrequestthattheCourtadoptsuchanumber.  Ontheanxietyandconcernelementofprejudice,theCourtreiterateditspreviousholdingthatitispracticallyimpossiblefortheStatetoprovethenonexistenceofanxietyandconcernandtheStatesburdenbecomesconsiderablylighterintheabsenceofmorethanmarginalevidenceofanxiety.TheCourtagreedwiththeStatethatanyanxiety_Haser_Ԁmighthavesufferedspokefarmoretothenatureofthecrimesthanthepretrialdelay.8  Ontheimpairmentofdefenseelementofprejudice,theCourtfoundthat_Haser_Ԁdidnotpresentanyevidenceindistrictcourtoronappealthathisdefensewasimpaired.TheCourtrejected_Haser_sargumentthattheStatefailedtomeetitsburdenofshowingthat_Haser_sdefensewasnotimpairedbythepretrialdelayandthat,therefore,hewasrelievedofhisburdentopresentevidenceofprejudiceinrebuttal.  0 #~~<# %~~Statev. > _Highpine_,2000MT368,57State_Rptr_._1573,_Ԁ15P.3d938(Cascade). ` Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Leaphart,J. TheSupremeCourtrejected x _Highpine_sspeedytrialclaim.Inthiscase,therewas428daysofdelayand,ofthatamount,theStatewasresponsiblefor350daysand,asaresult,theStatehadtheburdentoprovealackofprejudice.TheCourtnotedthatmostofthe350daysofdelaywasinstitutionalandweighedless_heavily_ԀagainsttheStatebecauseitwasnotadelaytheStateactivelypursued.TheCourtaddedthatbecausetherewas_lessfault_ԀontheStatespartfortheinstitutionaldelay, greaterprejudiceneednotbeshown.  TheCourtheldthattheStatedemonstratedalackofprejudice.TheCourtconcludedthatthe428daysthat_Highpine_Ԁspentinjailpriortotrialshowedhesufferedfrom pretrialincarceration.However,theCourtrejected_Highpine_s anxietyandconcernargument,statingthat _Highpine_Ԁwasnotprejudicedbyanxietyandconcernresultingfromthedelay,butrathertheanxietyandconcernhefeltwascausedbyotherinmatesreactionstothetypeofcrimeswhichhewaschargedandbyhisownobstreperousbehaviorinjail.TheCourtrejected_Highpine_sclaimthatdefensewasimpairedsimplybecausethelengthofthedelay,explainingthattheStatepresentedevidencethat_Highpine_Ԁdidnotlosewitnessesandnoneofhiswitnessessufferedmemoryloss.#~%~cH#%~~  (-x(% G*W G  G  _ E _State_v._ԀKeyes,2000MT337,___Mont.___,15P.3d443(Yellowstone).  Affirmed;Gray,J. Keyeswaschargedin1994withdeliberatehomicide,buthe  fledMontanaandwasnotarresteduntil1996.In1997,theStatefiledanamendedInformation,chargingKeyeswiththreealternatecountsofdeliberatehomicide.ThedistrictcourtdeniedKeyesmotiontodismisstheamendedinformationandheappliedforawritofsupervisorycontrol,whichwasacceptedandgrantednearlyayearlater.Onremand,theStatefiledanotheramendedInformation,andKeyesmovedtodismissonspeedytrialgrounds.Themotionwasdeniedandhepledguiltytocriminalendangerment,butreservedforappealthedistrictcourtsrulingonhisspeedytrialmotion.TheSupremeCourtaffirmedtheconviction,rulingthatthespeedytrialclockstartedin1994,whenKeyeswasoriginallycharged,thatthedelayresultingfromthegrantingofthewritforsupervisorycontrolwasattributabletotheState,butthatKeyeswasnotprejudicedinhisdefenseduetothedelay.#~%~P#%~~ State_v._Ԁ F Wright(Byron),2000MT322,302Mont.527,17P.3d982(Hill). h Affirmed;_Regnier,J.MotiontoDismissforPreIndictmentDelay._ Wright 0 waschargedwithfourcountsofcriminalsaleofdangerousdrugs.Hepledguiltytotwocountsbutreservedhisrighttoappealthedistrictcourtsdenialofhismotiontodismissongroundsofpreindictmentdelay.LawenforcementhadtaperecordingsofthetwotransactionstowhichWrightpledguilty.Thesameconfidentialinformantwasinvolvedinallfourtransactions.Wrightarguedthattheoneyeardelaywasanimpermissibledelaythathamperedhisdefensebecausetheconfidentialinformantcouldnotaccuratelyrecallallofthedetailsofthedrugtransactions,Wrightwasunabletolocatewitnessesonhisbehalf,andtheStatefailedtopreserveevidencenecessarytohisdefense.Wrightfailedtoprovehisdueprocessrightswereviolatedbythedelay,andthathesufferedactual,substantialprejudicefromtheoneyeardelayinprosecution.Wrightrelieduponatheoryof_entrapmentand/oralibi_Ԁattrialandclaimedhecouldnotprovethesedefensesbecausetheconfidentialinformantcouldnotaccuratelyremembersignificantdetailsaboutthediscussionleadinguptothedrugtransactions.Attrial,theconfidentialinformanttestifiedshedidnothingtoinduceWrightintosellingherdrugsotherthantoaskhim.Wrightwasabletocrossexaminetheconfidentialinformantandpresentotherrelevantevidencetoproveentrapment.TheofficersrecordedthetwotransactionsbetweenWrightandtheconfidentialinformanttowhichWrightpledguilty.Wrightsassertionthatthedelaypreventedhimfromcontactingpotentialwitnessestotestifyinsupportofhisdefenseswasmerespeculation.Wrightfailedtoestablishactualprejudicefrom (-x(% thefailuretorecordthefirsttwotransactionswhenthosetwocountsweredismissed.TheCourtwassomewhatcriticaloftheofficersdestructionoffieldnotesimmediatelyaftertransferringthatinformationintoareport,althoughthedestructionoffieldnoteswasthenormalcourseofconductandwasnotrelatedtothedelayincharging.#~%~jU# %~~_ I _Statev._Ellenburg_,2000MT232,301Mont.289,8P.3d801(Missoula). @  Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Althoughtherewere492daysofdelay,only220days X  wereattributabletotheState.TheCourtstatedthatifthedefendantmerelystipulatestoacontinuance,orproposesthescheduletofiledefensemotions,thattimeisnotattributabletohim,unlesshefailstoobjecttotheStatesassertionandthedistrictcourtsdeterminationthatthedelayisattributabletohim.Sincethedelaywaslessthan275days,theburdenremainedwiththedefendanttodemonstrateprejudice,andhefailedtodoso. State_v._Ԁ J Johnson(Aaron),2000MT180,300Mont.367,4P.3d654(Cascade).Affirmed;Hunt,J. JohnsonwaschargedbyInformationonJuly28,1998.His 0 trialwasoriginallysetforNovember30,1998.TheStatereceivedtwocontinuancesduetoconflictsforitskeywitnesses,andthecourtneededtocontinuetrialduetoaconflictwithitscalendar.TrialwaseventuallyheldonMarch2,1999,withatotaldelayof230days.NopresumptionofprejudicearoseunderBruce.TheSupremeCourtaffirmedthedistrictcourtsdenialofJohnsons  speedytrialmotion.Despitehisclaimsofprejudice,Johnsonfailedtoproduceanyevidencetoestablishaspeedytrialviolation.#~%~^#    I. ` Privacy 7e  X   %~~ State_v._Ԁ / Roper,2001MT96,___Mont.___,___P.3d___(SilverBow). 8" Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. Roper,whowasservingasuspendedsentencefora P# drugoffense,wassubjecttoacourtorderedsearchclause,aswellasaconsensualsearchclause.Subsequently,RoperwasconditionallydischargedfromstatesupervisionpursuanttoMont.CodeAnn. 0 46231011(6),thepurposeofwhichwastotakeadvantageofmoreintensivefederalsupervision.However,followingtheconditionaldischarge,theDOCinformedRoperhewouldremainonprobationarystatusthroughSeptember2001,andwouldbesubjecttowarrantlesssearchesanddrugtesting.Thereafter,RopersstateprobationofficerobtainedinformationfromtwootherprobationersthatRoperwasusingandsellingdrugs. (-x(% Thisinformationwasconfirmedbyotherlawenforcementagencies,andincludedindicationthatRoperwassellingdrugsoutofablackleatherpouch.WhentheprobationofficerandotherpoliceofficersobservedRoperoutsidehisworkplace,inwhatappearedtobeadrugtransaction,Ropersworkplacewassearched.Thesearchresultedinthediscoveryofablackleatherpouch,whichwasfoundinplainviewinRopersexclusiveworkarea.Thepouchcontainedmethamphetamine.OnappealtheCourtheldthattheconditionaldischargeorderdidnotvoidtheprobationofficersauthoritybecauseRoperwasinformedbytheStatethatheremainedonprobationandsubjecttowarrantlesssearchesifreasonablecauseexisted.Here,theofficerhadreasonablecause.TheCourtalsorejectedRoperscontentionthattheprobationofficerssearchauthorityonlyextendedtoasearchofhisperson,residence,orautomobileandnottoRopersworkplace,notingthatinBostontheCourt upheldasearchofagarageaspartofalawfulresidence   searcheventhoughthegaragewasseparatefromthepropertythattheresidencewaslocatedon.Therefore,theofficerhadthelawfulrighttosearchRopersworkareaandtoseizetheapparentlyincriminatingpouch,whichwasinplainviewinanareaoverwhichRoperhadexclusivecontrol.#~%~e# %~~   ` 0   (# (# Statev. K _Elison_,2000MT288,302Mont.228,#~%~n#%~~Ԁ14P.3d456(Yellowstone). ` Affirmedinpart,reversedinpart;Regnier,J. Acitizenobserverridingwitha x policeofficersaw_Elison_Ԁsmokingamarijuanapipeandtoldtheofficer.Theofficerstopped_Elison_Ԁandaskedhimaboutthepipe._Elison_Ԁadmittedtousingthepipeandtoldtheofficerthattherewasmarijuanainhispickup.Theofficerfoundacontainerwithmarijuanabehindthepickupseatandthenarrested_Elison_.TheSupremeCourtheldthattheofficerhadaparticularizedsuspicionfortheinvestigativestopandthattheofficerproperlyasked_Elison_ԀthepreliminaryquestionsaboutthemarijuanapriortogivinghimtheMirandawarnings.  !p However,theSupremeCourtdeterminedthattheofficerswarrantlessseizureofthemarijuanawasunlawful._Elison_Ԁhadanactualexpectationofprivacyinitemsstowedbehindhispickupseat,thecircumstanceswerenotsufficientlyexigent,andtheofficershouldhaveobtainedawarrantbeforeconductingthesearch.#~%~o#  &! 8   J. ` Vagueness/Overbreath t   %~~Statev. L _Therriault_,2000MT286,___Mont.___,14P.3d444(Missoula). 0 Affirmed;Nelson,J. _Therriault_,aprobationerintheIntensiveSupervision H Program(ISP),contendedthatthe goodcitizenshipconditionofhissuspendedsentencewastoovaguetowarnhimthatallowinganunderagegirltostayathishousewouldconstituteaviolationofhisprobation._Therriault_Ԁcontendedthathewasmerelyprovidingshelterforayounggirlwhowasbeingabusedatherownhome.TheCourtheld, Weconcludethatwhathisargumentlacksinmerit,itmakesupforwithsheerbanality....[_I]t_Ԁissimplyludicroustoarguethatagenuinelyconcernedgoodcitizenwouldsuggesttoa14yearoldgirlfromatroubledhomethatforherownsafetysheshouldtakeupresidenceatthehomeofaconvictedsexoffender,whoisonprobationandsubjecttorandomsearches,andthatthisshouldbeaccomplishedwithoutthesupervisingprobationofficersknowledge,orwithoutevenentertainingthepossibilityofanyothermoresuitablelivingarrangement.Inthisinstance,weknowgoodcitizenshipwhenweseeit.Here,wehavenot.#~%~Uu# %~~Statev. H Taylor,2000MT202,300Mont.499,5P.3d1019(Garfield). ` Affirmed,remandedinpart;Trieweiler,J. Inearly1994,the_Taylors_ x participatedwithotherFreemenintakingovertheGarfieldCountycourtroomtosetup"theirownsupremecourtofGarfieldCounty."The_Taylors_Ԁactedasersatz"JusticeofthePeace,""commonlawwitness,"and"JuratinLaw,"andappliedtheirsignaturestothesetitlesonvariousdocumentsthattheFreemenpurportedtofileintheirmakebelievecourt.The_Taylors_Ԁwereconvictedinthestatedistrictcourtofimpersonatingapublicservantandimpersonatingapublicservantbyaccountability.Onappeal,theSupremeCourtheldthatthetrialcourtcorrectlyinstructedthejuryontheimpersonatingapublicservantstatuteandrefusedthe_Taylors_'proposedinstruction.Thestatutedoesnotincludelanguagerequiringthatapersonmustfalselypretendtoholdaspecificpositioninthepublicservice.Neitheristhestatuteunconstitutionallyvaguesinceitclearlysetsforththatanyonewhopretendstoholdapositioninthepublicservicewiththepurposetoinduceanothertosubmittothatauthorityorwhichcausesanothertorelyuponthatpretensetohisbenefit,iswithintheconductproscribedbythestatute.BecausetheCourtcouldnotreviewthe_Taylors_'speedytrialassertion,theCourtremandedthecaseforfurtherfactualdevelopment.#~%~z#  *H&#  %~~#~%~#  (-x(%     K. ` Brady    %~~   Kills_On_ԀTopv.State(Vernon),2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422 0 (Custer).Affirmed;Regnier,J. FailureoftheStatetodiscloseimpeachment H evidencemayconstituteaBradyviolation,butreversalisrequiredonlyifthe  ` evidencecould reasonablybetakentoputthewholecaseinsuchadifferentlightastoundermineconfidenceintheverdict.Thatshowingisnotmadewheretherewasoverwhelmingevidenceofguiltfromotherwitnessesandcorroborativeevidence.#~%~Z# %~~ Statev. F Wright(Byron),2000MT322,___State_Rptr_.___,17P.3d982(Hill).   Affirmed;Regnier,J. Wrightcouldnotprevailonhisclaimthathisconviction   shouldbereversedbasedontheofficersdisposingoftheirfieldnotesbecausehefailedtoshowthefieldnoteshadexculpatoryvaluethatwouldhavechangedtheoutcomeofthetrial. #~%~# %~~ #~%~#%~~Statev. M _Ellenburg_,2000MT232,301Mont.289,8P.3d801(Missoula). 0 Affirmed;Trieweiler,J. NoBradyviolationoccurredbecausethedefendant H failedtociteanyauthorityforhispropositionthattherewasadueprocessviolationevenintheabsenceofprejudicefortheStatesfailuretoprepareaninventoryofthedocumentsseized;_he_Ԁfailedtoestablishtherelevanceofthealleged lostevidence(financialdocuments);andhefailedtodemonstratethathewasunabletoobtaincomparableevidencebyotherreasonablyavailablemeans_ O _(Californiav._Trombetta_,467U.S.479(1984)). ( #~%~V#   !p  UNPUBLISHED:  State_v._ԀBeavers,2001MT71N(Cascade).Affirmed;Gray,C.J. 0 %~~State_v._ԀBradford,2001MT48N(Gallatin).Affirmed;Nelson,J.  H #~%~#%~~ State_v._ԀWozniak,2001MT43N(Missoula).Affirmed;Trieweiler,J.#~%~u#%~~  ` Statev._Skelton_,2001MT18N(Cascade).Affirmed;Gray,C.J. #~%~%# %~~ ( x State_v._ԀStephenRichardPalmer,2001MT5N(Gallatin).Affirmed;Leaphart,J.#~%~#%~~ @  Statev._Colliins_,2001MT2N(Missoula).Affirmed;Nelson,J. 󀀀#~%~# %~~ X  Statev._Bjarko_,2000MT387N(Cascade).Affirmed;Nelson,J. p  Statev._Swartz_,2000MT385N(Custer).Affirmed;Gray,J.   #~%~{#Statev.Erik_Bedwell_,2000MT374N(Cascade).Affirmed;Leaphart,J.%~~   State_v._ԀMorse,2000MT351N(Custer).Affirmed;Gray,J. #~%~+#    %~~ InreA.D.,C.D.,andB.D.,2000MT272N(Cascade).Affirmed;Leaphart,J. 󀀀#~%~#%~~    Statev.Hawkins,2000MT214N(Powell).Affirmed;Hunt,J. #~%~#%~~ 8  Statev._Pfau_,2000MT208N(Ravalli)Reversed;Gray,J. #~%~@#%~~ P  Statev.Lambert,2000MT195N(Yellowstone).Affirmed;Leaphart,J.   h #~%~#Statev.Chowdhury,2000MT175N(Missoula).Affirmed;_______,J.  0 %~~ Statev._Deeg_,2000MT107N(Carbon).Affirmed;_Turnage_,C.J. #~%~"#%~~ H  Statev._Kuebler_,2000MT53N(Cascade).Affirmed;Leaphart,J. #~%~#%~~ ` #~%~#  x  8~dd8 w!~@ dCaseloadStatisticsbyCounty    July1,2000toJune30,2001 #~! wl# B   County ` TotalAppeals󀁁Direct  󁁁_YINCs_0  PC0 $$FelonyFilingsd  $ $    ` Resultingin h 󁁁Appeals   p    0   2000* |  $ $    PublishedDecision  h    Missoula0 `  170` $` $0h$$130h$h$0p$$10p$p$30 $$ x 520   $ $ LewisandClark0 120 $ $0h$$70h$h$0p$$40p$p$10 $$0x $ $454D x$x$ Yellowstone0 120 $ $0h$$70h$h$0p$$40p$p$10 $$1,353$t  $ $ Cascade0 ` 0 ` $` $110 $ $0h$$100h$h$0p$$0p$p$10 $$0x $ $579Tx$x$ Flathead0 ` 0 ` $` $40 $ $0h$$30h$h$0p$$0p$p$10 $$0x $ $499x$x$ Gallatin0 ` 0 ` $` $30 $ $0h$$20h$h$0p$$10p$p$0 $$0x $ $377x$x$ Fergus0 ` 0 ` $` $30 $ $0h$$20h$h$0p$$10p$p$0 $$874 $ $ Ravalli0 ` 0 ` $` $30 $ $0h$$30h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $268dx$x$ Butte/SilverBow0 30 $ $0h$$30h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $266Dx$x$ Lake0  0` $$0 ` $` $20 $ $0h$$20h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $208t!x$x$ Jefferson0 ` 0 ` $` $220 $ $0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $87#x$x$ Sanders0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$10h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $63%$!x$x$ Madison0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$0h$h$0$$10$$0 $$0x $ $25(T# x$x$ Bighorn0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$10h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $924*%"x$x$ Garfield0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$10h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $1d,'$x$x$   .)&  CaseloadStatisticsbyCounty    (Cont.)    County ` TotalAppeals󀁁Direct  󁁁_YINCs_0  PC0 $$FelonyFilings ` $ $    ` Resultingin h 󁁁Appeals   p    0   2000* ( x $ $    PublishedDecision  h  @  _Toole_0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$10h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $38 x$x$ Sheridan0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$10h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $11 x$x$ Dawson0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$0h$h$0$$0p$$0p$p$10 $$0x $ $668 x$x$ Meagher0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$10h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $1hx$x$ Hill0  0` $$0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$10h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $181Hx$x$ Custer0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$0h$h$0$$0p$$0p$p$10 $$0x $ $76xx$x$ JudithBasin0 10 $ $0h$$10h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$5 $ $ _Chouteau_0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$10h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $14(x$x$ Lincoln0 ` 0 ` $` $10 $ $0h$$10h$h$0p$$0p$p$0 $$0x $ $1480 x$x$ X $ $    `  ___0  0h$$___0h$h$___0$$____0x$$____8"x$x$  TOTALS0 ` 0 ` $` $850 $ $0h$$64**0h$h$120$$90 $$0x $ $5,419h$x$x$ L ((0L~0   *0$$Thesestatisticsareforthecalendaryear2000,whichisthemostrecentdataavailable '#  fromtheMontanaSupremeCourtAdministratorsoffice. $$ **0  Lessthan1%ofallcriminalcasesfiledstatewidearereviewedondirectappeal.*&#$$ #~?# /`*' Ї w!~  CaseloadStatisticsByIndividualJustices  (CriminalAppeals,Dependent/NeglectAppeals,andPostconvictionAppeals)#~! w # L   ~Justice ` Pub.Ops.  _Affd_ h _Revsd_󀀀_Affd_/_Rvsd_󀀀StateAppeal󀀀Comment    Hunt0  0` $$70 ` $` $0 $ $50h$$2  h$h$ Trieweiler191621(_affd_)_Turnage_0 ` 442 ` $` $ Nelson1385Leaphart0 ` 211821(_revsd_)J` $` $ _Regneir_0 ` 16150h` $` $0h$h$0$$1V$$ Gray0  0` $$871b` $` $ Cotter0  11n$$ Rice   ` _____0  ____0h$$____________0h$h$  TOTALS 0 ` 890 ` $` $7313220  $ $83%affirmed*#XjX~.)($$ #~XXj$#  /*)  w!~@" ABBREVIATIONSOF   @  ! COMMONLYUSEDTERMS   Z #~! w#DOC0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#DepartmentofCorrections  (# (# DPHHS0 ` 0 ` (#` (#DepartmentofPublicHealth&HumanServices & (# (# _IAC_0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#IneffectiveAssistanceofCounselV  (# (# MSH0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#MontanaStateHospital6  (# (# _MSP_0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#MontanaStatePrisonf  (# (# _PFO_0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#PersistentFelonyOffender (# (#    a8~dd8@" TABLEOFCONTENTS     I.  INVESTIGATIVEPROCEDURES/TECHNIQUES""J(#.21  `   A.0 ` InterviewsbyLawEnforcement#""J(#.441` (#` (##1 @    B. ` Miranda/Interrogation""J(#.)2 X  A  Am0  8` (#(#    Am݌ ` `  Ќ  II.0  SEARCHANDSEIZURE#""J(#.!(#(##3     A.0 ` SearchWarrants#""J(#.tt#` (#` (##3     B. ` InvestigativeStops""J(#.hh'4   A  A+0  8` (#(#    C.0` ` ` ProbationarySearches#""J(#.)` ` #5A+F݌ 8  Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    D. ` AutomobileException#""J(#.(` ` #7A4݌ P Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    A݌ ` `  Ќ  III.  COMMENCEMENTOFPROSECUTION""J(#.*8 0  V   V8       A. ` ChargingDocuments#""J(#.44&  #8 V݌ ` Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    B. ` Publicity#""J(#. ` ` #8A݌ x Ќ   V   V8     IV.  GUILTYPLEAS#""J(#.l l   #9 V݌  Ќ  V.0  PRETRIAL#<"<"I(#.b b (#(##10 (  V   V8       A. ` Discovery#<"<"I(#.& &   #10 V݌  X Ќ    B. ` Motions<"<"I(#.r r 11  !p   0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   1.0 MotionforAppointmentofSubstituteCounsel#<"<"I(#.E #11݌ P# Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   2.0 MotionforChangeofVenue#<"<"I(#.^^3 #12,݌ h$ Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   3.0 MotiontoExcludeEvidence#<"<"I(#.@@3 #134݌ %  Ќ    !0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   !<݌   Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    C.0` ` ` JurySelection#<"<"I(#."` ` #14A݌ '#  Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    D. ` Severance#<"<"I(#.$ $ ` ` #14A݌ ($! Ќ   *H&# %~~ TABLEOFCONTENTS    (Cont.)   VI.  TRIAL<"<"I(#. 15  ` A  Aq0  8` (#(#    A. ` Evidence#<"<"I(#. ` ` #15Aq݌ @  Ќ  A  AK0  8` (#(#    AKf݌ ` `  Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   1.0 Relevance#<"<"I(#." #15݌ p  Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   2. Foundation#<"<"I(#.# #15݌   Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   3. ConfessionsandAdmissions#<"<"I(#.XX3 #16݌   Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   4. Rule404/CharacterEvidence#<"<"I(#.4 #17݌   Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   5. OpinionandExpertTestimony#<"<"I(#.5 #18݌   Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   6. Hearsay#<"<"I(#. #21݌ 8  Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   7. DocumentaryEvidence/Exhibits#<"<"I(#.6 #22݌ P Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   8. StateofMind#<"<"I(#.& #23݌ h Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   9.0 SufficiencyoftheEvidenceandCredibility#<"<"I(#.D #24݌ 0 Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   10.0 PriorTestimony#<"<"I(#.( #300@ ! !݌ H Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   ݌   Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    B. ` OffensesAgainstthePerson#<"<"I(#./` ` #31A݌ x Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    A݌ ` `  Ќ    $0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   1. Homicide#<"<"I(#.VV! #31$?݌  Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   2. Assault/RelatedOffenses#<"<"I(#.1 #32-݌  Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   3. SexualCrimes#<"<"I(#.& #32+݌ ( Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   4. Other#<"<"I(#.  #33݌ @ Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `    ݌   Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    C. ` OffensesAgainstProperty#<"<"I(#.-` ` #34A݌  !p Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    A݌ ` `  Ќ    -0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   1. CriminalTrespass/Burglary#<"<"I(#.3 #34-H݌ P# Ќ    -0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   2. Theft/RelatedOffenses#<"<"I(#.@@/ #34-H݌ h$ Ќ    )0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   )D݌   Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    D. ` DUI#<"<"I(#. ` ` #34A݌ &! Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    E. ` Accountability#<"<"I(#."` ` #35A݌ '#  Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    F. ` JuryIssues#<"<"I(#.p p ` ` #36A݌ ($! Ќ  A  Ao0  8` (#(#    Ao݌ ` `  Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   1. JuryConduct/Deliberations#<"<"I(#.3 #36*݌ *H&# Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   2. Instructions#<"<"I(#.% #36*݌  ,`'$ Ќ   TABLEOFCONTENTS    (Cont.)     [0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   [v݌   Ќ    0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   *݌   Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    G. ` LesserIncludedOffenses#<"<"I(#.,` ` #38A݌  ` Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    H. ` ConductofProsecutor#<"<"I(#.)` ` #39A݌ ( x Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    I. ` Mistrial#<"<"I(#.J J ` ` #42A݌ @  Ќ  A  An0  8` (#(#    J.0` ` ` MotionsforContinuance#<"<"I(#.+` ` #43An݌ X  Ќ  A  A_0  8` (#(#    A_z݌ ` `  Ќ  VII.  SENTENCING<"<"I(#. 44    V   VL8       A. ` PersistentFelonyOffenderDesignation#<"<"I(#.:  #44 VLh݌   Ќ  A  A=0  8` (#(#    B. ` PleaAgreement h #<"<"I(#.hh#` ` #45A=X݌   Ќ  A  A)0  8` (#(#    C. ` MandatoryMinimums#<"<"I(#.&` ` #46A)D݌ 8  Ќ  A  A 0  8` (#(#    D. ` Restitution#<"<"I(#.l l ` ` #47A (݌ P Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    E. ` FinesorCosts#<"<"I(#."` ` #48A݌ h Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    F.0` ` ` Enhancement#<"<"I(#.^^` ` #49A݌ 0 Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    G.0` ` ` Oralv.Written#<"<"I(#.#` ` #49A݌ H Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    H.0` ` ` VictimImpact#<"<"I(#.!` ` #50A݌ ` Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    I.0` ` ` Other#<"<"I(#.v v ` ` #50A݌ x Ќ  VIII.  POSTTRIAL<"<"I(#.> > 52   V   V8       A. ` AppealPreservationofIssues#<"<"I(#.3  #52 V݌ ( Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    B. ` HabeasCorpusandPostconvictionRelief#<"<"I(#.;` ` #54A݌ @ Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    A݌ ` `  Ќ    00  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   1.0 StatuteofLimitations#<"<"I(#./ #540K݌  !p Ќ    40  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   2.0 AppointmentofCounsel#<"<"I(#./ #554O݌ 8" Ќ  A  A80  8` (#(#     ` 3.0 ` ` IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel#<"<"I(#.: #55A8S݌ P# Ќ    ?0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   4.0 RecordBasedv.NonRecordBasedClaims#<"<"I(#.@ #57?Z݌ h$ Ќ    T0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   5.0 ProceduralBar#<"<"I(#.>>' #57To݌ %  Ќ    P0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   6.0 Miscellaneous#<"<"I(#.& #58Pk݌ &! Ќ    K0  0` (#(#8 ` (#` (# `   Kf݌   Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    C. ` MotionforNewTrial#<"<"I(#.VV(` ` #59A ݌ ($! Ќ  A  A 0  8` (#(#    D.0` ` ` HarmlessError#<"<"I(#."` ` #61A  ݌ )0%" Ќ  A  A 0  8` (#(#    E. ` RevocationofSentence#<"<"I(#.*` ` #62A  ݌ *H&# Ќ  A  A 0  8` (#(#    F. ` Retroactivity#<"<"I(#...!` ` #64A  ݌ ,`'$ Ќ  A  A 0  8` (#(#    G.0` ` ` ProcedureonRemand#<"<"I(#.'` ` #64A  ݌  (-x(% Ќ  & H P*@@SYHTABLEOFCONTENTS    (Cont.)   'H IX.  DEPENDENTNEGLECTPROCEEDINGS<"<"I(#.@@,65  ` A  A0  8` (#(#    A.0` ` ` YouthinNeedofCare#<"<"I(#.)` ` #65A݌ @  Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    B.0` ` ` StandardofReview#<"<"I(#.&` ` #66A݌ X  Ќ  A  A{0  8` (#(#    C.0` ` ` StatutoryCriteriaforTermination#<"<"I(#.7` ` #66A{݌ p  Ќ  A  Ax0  8` (#(#    D.0` ` ` RequirementforTreatmentPlan#<"<"I(#.DD2` ` #7_'1_'Ax݌   Ќ  A  Az0  8` (#(#    E.0` ` ` Miscellaneous#<"<"I(#.!` ` #71Az݌   Ќ   V   Va8     X.  LICENSEREVOCATIONPROCEEDINGS#<"<"I(#.jj-  #73 Va}݌   Ќ   V   V>8     XI.  JUVENILES#<"<"I(#.   #74 V>Z݌ P Ќ  XII.  MENTALCOMMITMENT<"<"I(#.!75 0  V   V]8     XIII.  CONSTITUTIONALISSUES#<"<"I(#...$  #76 V]y݌ ` Ќ   V   V48     0  A. ` DueProcess/EqualProtection#<"<"I(#.VV0  #76 V4P݌  Ќ  A  A#0  8` (#(#    B.0` ` ` FourthAmendment#<"<"I(#.$` ` #77A#>݌  Ќ  A  A 0  8` (#(#    C.0` ` ` FifthAmendment/PrivilegeAgainstSelfIncrimination#<"<"I(#.H` ` #79A (݌  Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    D. ` RightofConfrontation#<"<"I(#.+` ` #80A6݌ ( Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    E.0` ` ` RighttoCounsel/EffectiveAssistance#<"<"I(#.bb9` ` #81A݌ @ Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    F. ` DoubleJeopardy#<"<"I(#.#` ` #85A݌  X Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    G.0` ` ` ExPostFacto#<"<"I(#.xx!` ` #85A݌  !p Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    H. ` SpeedyTrial#<"<"I(#. ` ` #85A݌ 8" Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    I. ` Privacy#<"<"I(#.. . ` ` #88A݌ P# Ќ  A  A0  8` (#(#    J. ` Vagueness/Overbreath#<"<"I(#.(` ` #90A݌ h$ Ќ  A  Ah0  8` (#(#    K. ` Brady#<"<"I(#. ` ` #91Ah݌ %  Ќ  `'`'d'a'STATISTICALa'a'INFORMATIONa'd'e'UNPUBLISHEDe'a'<"<"I(#.  92a'b' '#  b'STATISTICALINFORMATION(#(#K(#.!c'92c' )0%" A  A6!0  8` (#(#    A6!Q!݌ ` `  Ќ  A  A!0  8` (#(#    A!!݌ ` `  Ќ  + (-x(% Se S   S  h'h' @KK TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   to      h#  \#Z %~%~ Z_Ake_Ԁv.Oklahoma, H   407U.S.68(1985)#Z %~##~ Z||A(#.!19,56,83 h##݈  ` Ќ̌      $  Z ~%~ ZBoothv.Maryland, @    482U.S.496(1987)#Z %~N%#~ Z<"<"I(#."50 $%݈ X  Ќ̌      O&  Z ~%~ ZCaliforniav._Trombetta_,     467U.S.479(1984)#Z %~&#~ Z<"<"I(#."91 O&j&݈   Ќ̌      '  Z ~%~ ZCityofMissoulav._Fergunson_,     2001MT69,305Mont.36,22P.3d198#Z %~&(#~ Z<"<"I(#.$$534 ''݈ 8  Ќ̌      f)  Z ~%~ ZDawson_v._ԀState, h   2000MT219,301Mont.135,10P.3d49#Z %~)#~ Z<"<"I(#.``557 f))݈ 0 Ќ̌      *  Z ~~ ZDoylev.Ohio, `   426U.S.610(1976)#Z ~H+#~ ZR!R!F(#."2,39 * +݈ x Ќ̌      H,  Z ~%~ Z_Eisenman_Ԁv.State,    2000MT170,300Mont.322,#Z %~,#%~ ZԀ5P.3d542#Z %~R-#~ Z E(#.``559,64 H,c,݈  Ќ̌      .  Z ~%~ ZHagen_v._ԀState, @   1999MT8,293Mont.60,973P.2d233#Z %~r.#~ Z E(#.457,83 .5.݈  X Ќ̌      /  Z ~%~ ZHans_v._ԀState, 8"   283Mont.379,942P.2d674(1997)#Z %~/#~ Z<"<"I(#.zz138 //݈ P# Ќ̌      *1  Z ~%~ ZHarrison_v._ԀUnitedStates, %    392U.S.219(1968)#Z %~1#~ Z E(#."17,31 *1E1݈ &! Ќ̌   %~~    2  _Iaea_Ԁv._Sunn_, ($!   800F.2d861(9thCir.1986)#~%~2# E(#.VV+56,84 22݈ )0%" Ќ̌  Z ~%~ Z (-x(% P*f P  P  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #Z %~C4#%~ ZIn_re_ԀA.M.,   2001MT60,304Mont.379,22P.3d185#Z %~K5#~ Z=(#.&&452,65,66,71 ( x     Y6  #Z ~5#%~ ZIn_re_ԀA.W., X    2000MT311,302Mont.447,#Z %~6#%~ ZԀ14P.3d1252#Z %~`7#~ Z<"<"I(#.LL772 Y6t6݈ p  Ќ̌  %~~  InreA.W.,_D.G._,andM.G.Jr.,     1999MT42,293Mont.358,975P.2d1250~%~<"<"I(#.LL772   InreB.F.,R.F.andM.S.Jr.,   2000MT231,301Mont.281,#%~~8#~%~Ԁ8P.3d790#%~~9#~%~<"<"I(#.``570 P #%~~9#InreC.A., 0   2000MT227,301Mont.233,8P.3d116~%~||A(#.``566,70,72 H     ;  #%~~:#InreC.B.and_J.B._, x   2001MT42,304Mont.252,20P.3d117~%~ E(#.``561,68 ;2;݈  Ќ̌      k<  #%~~;#  Inre_C.D.S._,_S.E.S._,and_T.M.S._,    2000MT313,302Mont.466,14P.3d1248 E(#.LL766,69 k<<݈ ( Ќ̌       >  InreC.F.,_H.F._,and_J.F._,  X   2001MT19,304Mont.134,18P.3d1014~%~<"<"I(#.669 >(>݈  !p Ќ̌      b?  Z ~%~ ZInre_E.W._, P#   1998MT135,289Mont.190,959P.2d951#Z %~?#~ Z E(#.LL766,69 b?}?݈ h$ Ќ̌      @  Z ~~ ZInreF.M.andS.M., &!   2001MT93,305Mont.189,24P.3d208#Z ~EA#~ Z<"<"I(#.666 @A݈ '#  Ќ̌      \B  Z ~%~ ZInre_J.L._ԀandD.L., )0%"   2000MT289,302Mont.254,#Z %~B#%~ ZԀ14P.3d473#Z %~hC#~ Z<"<"I(#.665 \BwB݈ *H&# Ќ̌      -D  %~~-DHD (-x(% Ќ  #~%~fD#%~~ TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #~%~D#%~~Inre_J.M._ԀJr.,   2001MT51,304Mont.303,21P.3d618#~%~E#||A(#.``515,61,71 ( x   %~~    F  Inre_J.W._Ԁand_K.D._,   2001MT86,305Mont.149,23P.3d916#~%~|F#<"<"I(#.``567 FF݈ p  Ќ̌      G  Z ~%~ ZInre_M.W._Ԁand_C.S._,     2001MT78,305Mont.80,23P.3d206#Z %~=H#~ Z||A(#.$$567,71,76 GH݈   Ќ̌      I  Z ~~ ZInreMcKenzie, 8    2001MT25,304Mont.153,19P.3d221#Z ~I#~ Z<"<"I(#.``573 II݈ P Ќ̌      K  Z ~%~ ZInreMentalHealthofS.C., 0   2000MT370,57State_Rptr_.1584,15P.3d861#Z %~\K#~ Z<"<"I(#.<75 KK݈ H Ќ̌      L  Z ~%~ ZInreS.M., x   2001MT11,304Mont.102,19P.3d213#Z %~L#~ Z<"<"I(#.``569 LL݈  Ќ̌      N  Z ~%~ ZInre_T.Z._Ԁand_J.Z._,    2000MT205,300Mont.522,6P.3d960#Z %~^N#~ Z<"<"I(#.670 N!N݈ ( Ќ̌      O  %~~KillsOnTopv.State(Vernon),  X   2000MT340,___Mont.___,15P.3d422#~%~O#=(#.650,56,58,91 OO݈  !p Ќ̌      P  Z ~%~ Z_MacPheat_Ԁv.Mahoney, P#   2000MT62,299Mont.46,#Z %~UQ#%~ ZԀ997P.2d753#Z %~R#~ Z E(#.``559,64 PQ݈ h$ Ќ̌      R  Z ~%~ ZPaynev.Tennessee, &!   501U.S.808(1991)#Z %~)S#~ Z<"<"I(#."50 RR݈ '#  Ќ̌      +T  Z ~%~ ZSmith(RonaldAllen#Z %~T#%~ Z)v.State, )0%"   2000MT327,___Mont.___,15P.3d395#Z %~T#~ Z<"<"I(#.657 +TFT݈ *H&# Ќ̌      U  #Z ~oU#%~ ZUV (-x(% Ќ  #Z %~BV#%~ Z TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #Z %~V#%~ ZStateexrel._Mazurek_Ԁv.DistrictCourt(Ingraham),   2000MT266,302Mont.39,22P.3d166#Z %~]W#~ Z E(#.``517,30#Z ~5X#%~ ZԈ ( x #Z %~X#    X  %~ ZState_v._ԀAlexander, X    265Mont.192,875P.2d345(1994)#Z %~*Y#~ Z E(#.zz122,62 X Y݈ p  Ќ̌      _Z  Z ~%~ ZStatev._Aliff_,     2001MT52,304Mont.310,21P.3d624#Z %~Z#~ Z<"<"I(#.``581 _ZzZ݈   Ќ̌      [  Z ~~ ZState_v._ԀAllen, 8    2001MT17,304Mont.129,18P.3d1006#Z ~@\#~ Z<"<"I(#.659 [\݈ P Ќ̌      r]  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀAllies, 0   186Mont.99,606P.2d1043(1979)#Z %~]#~ ZB(#.zz11,16,79 r]]݈ H Ќ̌      ^  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀBaker, x   2000MT235,301Mont.323,8P.3d817#Z %~W_#~ Z9(#.``510,28,33,42,43 ^_݈  Ќ̌      `  Z ~~ ZStatev._Billedeaux_,    2001MT9,304Mont.89,18P.3d990#Z ~`#~ Z||A(#.tt326,38,60 ``݈ ( Ќ̌      ,b  Z ~~ ZStatev._Bjarko_,  X   2000MT387N(UNPUBLISHED)#Z ~b#~ Z<"<"I(#.)62 ,bGb݈  !p Ќ̌      c  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀBlanchard, P#   270Mont.11,889P.2d1180(1995)#Z %~d#~ Z E(#.zz145,47 cc݈ h$ Ќ̌      7e  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀBrady, &!   2000MT282,302Mont.174,13P.3d941#Z %~e#~ Z E(#.613,28 7eRe݈ '#  Ќ̌      f  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀBrummer, )0%"   1998MT11,287Mont.168,953P.2d250#Z %~g#~ Z<"<"I(#.660 ff݈ *H&# Ќ̌   (-x(% %~~ TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #~%~fh#%~~#~%~i#Statev._Cady_,   2000MT353,___Mont.___,%~~Ԁ15P.3d479#~%~i# E(#.755,82 ( x     4j  %~~Statev.Carlson, X    2000MT320,302Mont.508,#~%~mj#%~~Ԁ15P.3d893#~%~j#""J(#.65 4jOj݈ p  Ќ̌   %~~    k  State_v._ԀCastle,     285Mont.363,948P.2d688(1997)#~%~k#<"<"I(#.zz138 kk݈   Ќ̌      l  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀCharlo, 8    2000MT192,300Mont.435,4P.3d1201#Z %~Om#~ Z<"<"I(#.654 lm݈ P Ќ̌      n  Z ~~ ZStatev._Clausell_, 0   2001MT62,305Mont.1,22P.3d1111#Z ~n#~ Z22:(#.42,23,26,31,39 nn݈ H Ќ̌      p  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀDavis, x   2000MT199,300Mont.450,5P.3d547#Z %~tp#~ Z=(#.``529,32,37,84 p7p݈  Ќ̌      q  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀDuffy,    2000MT186,300Mont.381,6P.3d453#Z %~ r#~ Z<<)(#.``510,20,22,30,33,42,46,77,85 qq݈ ( Ќ̌      Zs  Z ~%~ ZStatev._Dyfort_,  X   2000MT338,___Mont.___,15P.3d464#Z %~s#~ Z E(#.657,83 Zsus݈  !p Ќ̌      t  Z ~%~ ZStatev._Elison_, P#   2000MT288,302Mont.228,#Z %~Au#%~ ZԀ14P.3d456#Z %~u#~ ZR!R!F(#.67,89 tu݈ h$ Ќ̌      v  Z ~%~ ZStatev._Ellenburg_, &!   2000MT232,301Mont.289,8P.3d801#Z %~w#~ Z E(#.``588,91 vv݈ '#  Ќ̌  Z ~%~ ZStatev.Enright/Link, )0%"   2000MT372,57State_Rptr_.1590,16P.3d366#Z %~ix#~ Z E(#.<14,31 *H&#  (-x(% @@j @  @  Z ~%~ Z TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #Z %~y#%~ ZStatev.Fey,   2000MT211,301Mont.28,7P.3d358#Z %~z#~ Z<"<"I(#.429 ( x  #Z ~/{# %~ ZStatev.Field, X    2000MT268,302Mont.62,#Z %~{#%~ ZԀ11P.3d1203#Z %~9|#~ Z<"<"I(#.663 p  #Z ~|#%~ ZStatev.Fields,     2000MT328,___Mont.___,15P.3d400#Z %~|#~ Z E(#.744,63   #Z ~}#  %~ Z    @~  State_v._ԀFish,   190Mont.461,621P.2d1072(1980)#Z %~ ~#~ Z<"<"I(#.219 @~[~݈ P Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZStatev._Flatley_, 0   2000MT295,302Mont.314,#Z %~#%~ ZԀ14P.3d1195#Z %~#~ Z||A(#.LL727,28,35 ݈ H Ќ̌      V  Z ~%~ ZStatev._Fuqua_, x   2000MT273,302Mont.99,#Z %~#%~ ZԀ13P.3d34#Z %~\#~ Z E(#.$$536,39 Vq݈  Ќ̌      %  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀGallagher,    2001MT39,304Mont.215,19P.3d817#Z %~}#~ Z E(#.``511,81 %@݈ ( Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZStatev._Giddings_,  X   2001MT76,302Mont.99,#Z %~#%~ Z___P.3d___#Z %~#~ Z E(#.652,62 ф݈  !p Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZStatev._Goebel_, P#   2001MT73,305Mont.53,#Z %~#%~ ZԀ___P.3d___#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.662 ݈ h$ Ќ̌      V  Z ~%~ ZStatev._Golder_, &!   2000MT239,301Mont.368,9P.3d635#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.``510 Vq݈ '#  Ќ̌        %~~Statev._Gollehon_, )0%"   274Mont.112,906P.2d697(1995)#~%~#<"<"I(#.zz112 ݈ *H&# Ќ̌   (-x(% %~~ TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #~%~?#%~~#~%~ދ#Statev._Gowan_,   2000MT277,302Mont.127,%~~Ԁ13P.3d376#~%~#<"<"I(#.618 ( x %~~Statev.Grace, X    2001MT22,304Mont.144,18P.3d1008#~%~ # E(#.653,59 p      ܍  %~~Statev._Guillaume_,     1999MT29,293Mont.224,#~%~#%~~975P.2d312#~%~Ȏ#||A(#.649,54,85 ܍݈   Ќ̌      |  ~~Statev.Gustafson, 8    2000MT364,57State_Rptr_.1554,15P.3d944#~~# E(#.<13,15 |݈ P Ќ̌   %~~      State_v._ԀHall, 0   1999MT297,293Mont.224,#~%~#%~~991P.2d929#~%~ʑ# E(#.LL737,84 ݈ H Ќ̌      t  Z ~%~ ZStatev.Hart, x   2000MT332,___Mont.___,15P.3d917#Z %~̒#~ Z9(#.717,41,49,81,85 t݈  Ќ̌        Z ~~ ZStatev._Haser_,    2001MT6,304Mont.63,20P.3d100#Z ~F#~ Z||A(#.tt326,32,85  ݈ ( Ќ̌      }  Z ~%~ ZStatev._Hatler_,  X   2001MT38,304Mont.211,19P.3d822#Z %~Օ#~ Z""J(#.``54 }݈  !p Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZStatev._Hensley_, P#   250Mont.478,821P.2d1029(1991)#Z %~^#~ Z<"<"I(#.219 !݈ h$ Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZStatev._Herbenson_, &!   2001MT75,305Mont.68,22P.3d1128#Z %~#~ Z""J(#.``54 ݈ '#  Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀHermes, )0%"   273Mont.446,904P.2d587(1995)#Z %~x#~ ZB(#.zz11,16,79 5݈ *H&# Ќ̌  %~~ (-x(% YHl Y  TRX3' WhiteX3' White3' White3' WhiteT Y  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #~%~#Statev._Highpine_,   2000MT368,57State_Rptr_.1573,15P.3d938 E(#.=14,86 ( x %~~      Statev.Hill(_Kippy_ԀJoe), X    2000MT308,302Mont.415,#~%~ݞ#%~~Ԁ14P.3d1237#~%~П#3(#.81,8,12,16,19,20,79 ݈ p  Ќ̌   %~~Statev.Horton,     2001MT100,305Mont.242,___P.3d___#~%~# E(#.LL746,47       o  %~~Statev.Hubbel, 8    2001MT31,304Mont.184,20P.3d111#~%~#=(#.``544,49,76,82 o݈ P Ќ̌  0   %~~Statev.Hubbel, 0 286Mont.200,951P.2d971(1997)#~%~##||A(#.zz1(#(##44,49,76 H  %~~#~%~#Z ~ %~ Z% R     '  State_v._ԀJenkins, x   2001MT79,305Mont.95,23P.3d201#Z %~#~ Z E(#.421,80 'B݈  Ќ̌      w  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀJohnson(Aaron),    2000MT180,300Mont.367,4P.3d654#Z %~ϥ#~ Z E(#.``530,88 w݈ ( Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀJohnson(Elizabeth),  X   2000MT290,302Mont.265,14P.3d480#Z %~f#~ Z E(#.644,49 )݈  !p Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZStatev.Keyes, P#   2000MT337,___Mont.___,15P.3d443#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.687 Ũ݈ h$ Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZStatev._LaDue_, &!   2001MT47,304Mont.288,20P.3d775#Z %~l#~ Z||A(#.``515,52,76 /݈ '#  Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZStatev._LaMere_, )0%"   2000MT45,298Mont.358,2P.3d204#Z %~#~ Z E(#.414,64 ݈ *H&# Ќ̌      2  Z ~  %~ Z2M (-x(% Ќ  #Z %~#%~ Z TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #Z %~#%~ ZStatev.Lane,   288Mont,286,957P.2d9(1998)#Z %~#~ Z E(#./44,49 ( x       #Z ~>#%~ ZStatev._LaTray_, X    2000MT262,302Mont.11,#Z %~#%~ ZԀ11P.3d116#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.``547 ݈ p  Ќ̌      e  #Z ~#%~ ZStatev._Lesmeister_,     2000MT318,302Mont.500,#Z %~#%~ ZԀ15P.3d392#Z %~u#~ Z<"<"I(#.674 e݈   Ќ̌  #Z ~ò#  %~ ZStatev.Lopez, 8    2001MT97,305Mont.218,___P.3d___#Z %~i#~ Z E(#.624,64 P     [  #Z ~#%~ ZStatev.Maier, 0   1999MT51,293Mont.403,977P.2d298#Z %~#~ Z E(#.621,80 [v݈ H Ќ̌      ͵  #Z ~R#%~ ZStatev.Marker, x   2000MT303,302Mont.380,#Z %~)#%~ ZԀ15P.3d373#Z %~#~ Z E(#.736,60 ͵݈  Ќ̌  #Z ~#  %~ Z    ѷ  State_v._ԀMartin(a/k/aJamesGeneTrujillo),    2001MT83,305Mont.123,23P.3d216#Z %~#~ Z\\5(#.``524,25,31,32,34,38 ѷ݈ ( Ќ̌      M  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀMoore,  X   268Mont.20,885P.2d477(1994),   overruledonothergrounds,Statev._Gollehon_, 8"   274Mont.112,906P.2d697(1995)#Z %~#~ ZR!R!F(#.zz18,12 Mh݈ P# Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZStatev._Morigeau_, %    2000MT177N(UNPUBLISHED)#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.)34 ݈ &! Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀMunoz, ($!   2001MT85,305Mont.139,23P.3d922#Z %~a#~ Z""J(#.69 $݈ )0%" Ќ̌  Z ~        %~ ZStatev._Neiderklopfer_, ,`'$   2000MT187,300Mont.397,6P.3d448#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.``545ؾ݈ (-x(% Ќ  Z ~ e'e'%~ Ze'e'TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #Z %~a#%~ Z    (  #Z %~#%~ ZState_v._ԀRobbins,  `   1998MT297,292Mont.23,971P.2d359#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.782#Z ~B#%~ Z  (C݈ ( x Ќ̌  #Z %~#    *  %~ ZState_v._ԀRoper, X    2001MT96,305Mont.212,___P.3d___#Z %~c#~ ZB(#.75,77,88 *E݈ p  Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀScarborough,     2000MT301,302Mont.350,#Z %~#%~ ZԀ14P.3d1202#Z %~#~ Z1(#.LL716,18,20,27,36,39,51 ݈   Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZStatev._Schwein_, 8    2000MT371,57State_Rptr_.1587,16P.3d373#Z %~#~ Z E(#.<35,42 ݈ P Ќ̌      >  State_v._ԀSetters,   2001MT101,305Mont.253,___P.3d___ E(#.LL745,47 >Y݈ H Ќ̌      G  %~~Statev.Simmons, x   2000MT329,___Mont.___,15P.3d408#~%~# E(#.534,73%~~ Gb݈  Ќ̌        #~%~>#Statev.Smith(Paul_Emond_),    2001MT111,___Mont.___,___P.3d___||A(#.LL748,50,52 ݈ ( Ќ̌        %~~State_v._ԀSprinkle,  X   2000MT188,304Mont.134,18P.3d1014#~%~#<"<"I(#.LL746 ݈  !p Ќ̌      +  %~~Statev.St.John, P#   2001MT1,304Mont.47,15P.3d970#~%~d#||A(#.449,53,82 +F݈ h$ Ќ̌   %~~      Statev.Stewart, &!   2000MT379,57State_Rptr_.1615,16P.3d391#~%~l#||A(#.<22,39,40 ݈ '#  Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀSwan, )0%"   2000MT246,301Mont.439,10P.3d102#Z %~ #~ Z E(#.611,84 ݈ *H&# Ќ̌      U  Z ~%~ Z Up (-x(% Ќ  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #Z %~#%~ ZStatev.Taylor,   2000MT202,300Mont.499,5P.3d1019#Z %~#~ Z||A(#.629,37,90 ( x     v    #Z ~#%~ ZStatev._Therriault_, X    2000MT286,302Mont.189,14P.3d444#Z %~#%~ ZR!R!F(#.66,90 v݈ p  Ќ̌   #Z %~#%~ Z    f  State_v._ԀThornton,     218Mont.317,708P.2d273(1985)#Z %~G#~ Z<"<"I(#.zz125 f݈   Ќ̌        Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀTucker, 8    2000MT255,301Mont.466,10P.3d832#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.653 ݈ P Ќ̌      ;  Z ~%~ ZState_v._ԀTurner, 0   2000MT270,302Mont.69,#Z %~#%~ ZԀ12P.3d934#Z %~H#~ Z E(#.``556,83 ;V݈ H Ќ̌        #Z ~#~ ZStatev._Vallier_, x   2000MT225,301Mont.228,8P.3d112#Z ~m#~ Z<"<"I(#.664 ,݈  Ќ̌        #Z ~*#%~ ZState_v._ԀWashington,    506S.E.2d283(N.C.Ct.App.1998)#Z %~#~ Z E(#.222,62 ݈ ( Ќ̌      4  #Z ~#~ ZState_v._ԀWells#Z ~## Z,#Z ##%~ ZԀ  X   2001MT55,304Mont.329,21P.3d610#Z %~C#~ Z<"<"I(#.654 4O݈ .!~ Ќ̌      F  #Z ~#%~ ZStatev.Whipple, ^#   2001MT16,304Mont.118,19P.3d228#Z %~#~ Z=(#.618,22,53,61 Fa݈ v$ Ќ̌        #Z ~?#%~ ZStatev._Wooster_Ԁ(II), &!   2001MT4,304Mont.56,16P.3d409#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.tt375 ݈ '#  Ќ̌  #Z ~#  %~ Z      Statev._Worrall_, )>%"   2001MT57,304Mont.341,22P.3d182#Z %~#~ Z""J(#.``53 ݈ +V&# Ќ̌        Z ~%~ Z  6-(% Ќ  #Z %~F# %~ ZTABLEOFAUTHORITIES    (Cont.)   #Z %~#%~ ZStatev.Wright(Byron),   2000MT322,302Mont.527,17P.3d982#Z %~b#~ Z||A(#.611,87,91 ( x     Z  #Z ~#~ ZStatev._Zeltner_, X    2000MT319,302Mont.504,15P.3d384#Z ~#~ Z E(#.623,33 Zu݈ p  Ќ̌  #Z ~s#%~ Z_Swearingen_Ԁv.State,     2001MT10,304Mont.97,18P.3d998#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.^^655   #Z ~#%~ Z_Teague_Ԁv.Lane,        489U.S.288(1989)#Z %~L#~ Z E(#."59,64 ݈ P Ќ̌        UnitedStatesv.Owens,   484U.S.554(1988) E(#."21,80 ݈ H Ќ̌      m  Z ~%~ ZWilliams_v._ԀCollins, x   989F.2d841(5thCir.1993)#Z %~#~ Z<"<"I(#.+19   m݈  Ќ̌    i'    i'k'  k'j'88HH~  vc$B2.b~01", ` @E1",",]#6-vt' #tN t'#ttNMONTANA \ $ SUPREMECOURTUPDATE#tNtj#t' tN  r #tN t'#ttNCasesdecidedJuly1,2000,toJune30,2001,   ofimportancetolocalandstateprosecutors#tNt7#t A!tN *  #tN!t A#t tNpeX<,(`~vk X  `SFE vk X l X vk X p#tNt >#ttNCompiledbytheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralj'l' (v$ l'j'j'l'l'j'j'l'l'j'j'm'l' ,( l'm'j'#tNt##~tN(#j'