State v. Lindberg, 347 Mont. 76

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed Lawrence Rolan Lindberg’s convictions for felony sexual assault, felony sexual intercourse without consent, and misdemeanor sexual assault. The court declined to apply plain-error review to unobjected-to prosecutorial comments concerning witness credibility and the defense’s failure to present corroborating witnesses, and addressed claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and limits on cross-examination under Montana’s rape-shield law.

Holdings

1. The court declined to invoke plain-error review because, although some comments were improper, they did not implicate Lindberg's post-Miranda silence and did not create a sufficient risk of manifest miscarriage of justice, fundamental unfairness, or compromised judicial integrity.
2. Counsel was not ineffective because Lindberg failed to establish that the question necessarily suggested the desired answer or that the district court would have disallowed it if counsel had objected; he therefore failed to prove deficient performance and prejudice.
3. Counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's comments fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, but Lindberg failed to show prejudice sufficient to warrant reversal.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion or violate Lindberg's constitutional rights by excluding evidence of the alleged sexual nature of H.B.'s relationship with S.H.; Lindberg could present the alleged motive to fabricate without introducing the excluded sexual-history evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor's closing-argument comments about witness credibility and the defense's failure to present evidence warranted plain-error review or reversal.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object adequately to leading questions during H.B.'s direct testimony and to the prosecutor's closing-argument comments.
3. Whether the district court violated Lindberg's confrontation and defense-presentment rights or abused its discretion by excluding evidence concerning the alleged sexual nature of H.B.'s relationship with S.H. under Montana's rape shield law.

Disposition

affirmed