State of Montana v. Dustin Scott Dineen

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Dustin Scott Dineen’s felony strangulation conviction. The Court held that prior inconsistent statements by the victim were sufficiently corroborated by circumstantial evidence, rejected his ineffective-assistance claim for lack of demonstrated prejudice, and declined to review his unpreserved jury-instruction challenge for plain error.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Dineen purposely or knowingly impeded Curtiss’s normal breathing by blocking airflow to her nose and mouth. Curtiss’s prior inconsistent statements could be used as substantive evidence because they were corroborated by circumstantial and other evidence.
2. Dineen failed to establish a reasonable probability that, absent counsel’s question opening the door to evidence of prior domestic violence, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The ineffective-assistance claim therefore failed.
3. The court declined to exercise plain-error review over Dineen’s unpreserved challenge to the jury instruction concerning the mental state for strangulation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sufficient evidence, including corroboration of Curtiss’s prior inconsistent statements, supported Dineen’s conviction for felony strangulation.
2. Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by asking Curtiss whether physical violence in the relationship was regular or an exception, thereby opening the door to evidence of prior violence.
3. Whether the court should exercise plain-error review over an unpreserved challenge to the jury instruction concerning the mental state required for strangulation.

Disposition

affirmed