Summary
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Michael Robert Stutzman’s conviction for sexual assault. The court rejected claims concerning prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, the absence of a specific unanimity instruction, and the nondisclosure of medical and counseling records reviewed in camera. Although the court found that certain records should have been disclosed, it concluded that the errors were not material and did not warrant a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor's rebuttal argument that a not-guilty verdict would mean the jury believed R.W. and K.W. were lying violated Stutzman's right to a fair trial and required a new trial.
- Whether the District Court plainly erred by failing to give a specific unanimity instruction requiring the jury to agree on at least one particular criminal act supporting the sexual assault charge.
- Whether the District Court erred by failing to disclose potentially exculpatory information identified during its in camera review of the children's medical and counseling records.
Holdings
- The prosecutor's isolated rebuttal statement, even if improper, did not prejudice Stutzman's right to a fair trial or affect the outcome beyond a reasonable doubt; the denial of a new trial was therefore not an abuse of discretion.
- The District Court did not plainly err by failing to give a specific unanimity instruction because the parties presented the tent incident as the basis for the sexual assault charge, and the circumstances did not warrant invoking plain-error review.
- The District Court abused its discretion by failing to disclose medical and counseling records that were potentially favorable to the defense, but the nondisclosure did not require reversal because there was no reasonable probability that disclosure would have affected the outcome.
Key quotations
“When the State charges multiple criminal acts within one count, and when “a genuine possibility exists that different jurors will conclude a defendant committed disparate illegal acts subsumed under the single count,” the court must provide a specific unanimity instruction directing the jurors “to reach a unanimous verdict on at least one specific criminal act before finding guilt for the multiple-act count.”” (¶ 22)
“Ultimately, to mandate reversal of the conviction, a defendant “must prove ‘that there is a reasonable probability that had the information been provided, the result would have been different or[,] stated another way, is it a “verdict worthy of confidence”?’”” (¶ 29)
Factual background
Michael Stutzman lived with his former girlfriend, Angela, and her eight-year-old twin daughters, R.W. and K.W. Both children disclosed that Stutzman had inappropriately touched or sexually assaulted them. R.W. testified about two incidents, one involving touching while she sat on Stutzman's lap and another involving touching under her clothing in a tent; the jury convicted Stutzman for sexual assault against R.W. but acquitted him of the separate charge involving K.W. Before trial, the District Court reviewed medical and counseling records in camera and disclosed none of them to the defense.
Procedural history
Stutzman was charged with felony sexual assault against R.W. and felony sexual intercourse without consent against K.W. The jury acquitted him on the charge involving K.W. but convicted him of sexual assault against R.W. The District Court denied his motion for a new trial and sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison with twenty years suspended. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed.