Summary
The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed William Parrish's conviction for criminal endangerment and the denial of his motion for a new trial. The court held that the State did not violate Brady because Parrish had actual notice of the allegedly suppressed evidence and could have obtained it with reasonable diligence. The court also rejected claims based on newly discovered evidence, plain error concerning a lesser-included-offense instruction, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Parrish's motion for a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation.
- Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Parrish's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence consisting of signed information releases.
- Whether the District Court committed plain error by failing to give, sua sponte, a lesser-included-offense instruction on negligent endangerment.
- Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to propose a lesser-included-offense instruction on negligent endangerment.
Holdings
- The District Court properly denied a new trial because Parrish failed to establish that he could not have obtained the releases through reasonable diligence. The assessment provided actual notice of the releases' existence and substance, so the Brady claim failed.
- The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial because Parrish failed to satisfy the diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence.
- The District Court's failure to sua sponte instruct the jury on negligent endangerment did not warrant plain-error review or reversal.
- Parrish failed to establish ineffective assistance because counsel's decision not to request a lesser-included-offense instruction could be a reasonable strategic choice and did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.
Key quotations
“Absent request by the parties, the trial court has no duty to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense.” (¶ 24)
“defense counsel may want to omit such an instruction as a matter of strategy.” (¶ 24)
“there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and was based on sound trial strategy.” (¶ 26)
Factual background
Parrish was caring for his girlfriend's children when one child, M.G., sustained serious injuries, including a skull fracture, internal bruising, and broken ribs, on August 5, 2008. Parrish did not promptly seek medical treatment and initially told the child's mother, a CFS supervisor, and a deputy sheriff that he did not know how the injuries occurred. Before trial, the State produced an investigative assessment through an in camera discovery process, and the assessment disclosed the existence and substance of signed information releases. Parrish's counsel did not request a lesser-included-offense instruction, and the jury convicted Parrish of criminal endangerment.
Procedural history
A Rosebud County jury convicted Parrish of criminal endangerment after a trial concerning his failure to obtain medical treatment for a child's serious injuries. The District Court denied Parrish's motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the conviction and the denial of the new-trial motion and affirmed.