A. Golie v. State, 399 P.3d 892

In March 2011 police linked a unique stolen necklace to Andrew Golie after a friend, Edmondson, attempted to pawn it; Golie later told Edmondson to admit to stealing it and threatened his family, leading to charges.
Golie was tried for felony intimidation and tampering with witnesses; acquitted of intimidation and convicted of witness tampering.
On direct appeal this Court declined to resolve an ineffective-assistance claim about a jury instruction and allowed PCR review; Golie then filed a postconviction relief petition raising eight IAC claims.
The district court denied all claims after evidentiary development; Golie appealed four specific IAC contentions.
The four contested issues: (1) counsel’s failure to object to conduct-based mental-state jury instructions; (2) failure to object to testimony about Golie’s “brothers”/“Modern Outlaw”; (3) counsel’s disclosure that Golie was on probation; and (4) failure to object to police testimony that vouched for witness credibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Mental-state jury instruction	Golie: witness-tampering is result-based; counsel should have objected to conduct-based "knowingly/purposely" instructions	State: statute criminalizes attempts/conduct, not a required result; conduct-based instruction was proper	No IAC — instructions were correct and no deficiency proved
2. Testimony re: "brothers" / "Modern Outlaw"	Golie: references implied gang affiliation and prejudiced jury; counsel should have objected	State: term came from Golie's own statement and was relevant to showing attempt to influence; defense elicited explanatory testimony	No IAC — counsel reasonably declined to object and elicited clarification
3. Disclosure that Golie was on probation	Golie: brief disclosure prejudiced jury and violated motion in limine	State: prior DUI was nonviolent and jurors could distinguish; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice	No IAC — counsel acknowledged error but disclosure did not prejudice outcome
4. Police vouching for witnesses' credibility	Golie: detective’s statements impermissibly vouched for witnesses; counsel should have objected	State: prosecution may rebut defense attacks on credibility; counsel had tactical reasons to refrain from objecting	No IAC — withholding objection was a reasonable trial tactic

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Lambert, 280 Mont. 231, 929 P.2d 846 (distinguishing conduct‑based vs. result‑based offenses)
State v. Matson, 227 Mont. 36, 736 P.2d 971 (timing and number of objections lie within counsel’s tactical discretion)