Christopher M. Montgomery v. State of Indiana
21 N.E.3d 846
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In March 2007 four-year-old Elijah died after sustaining blunt-force head trauma; autopsy showed a fresh occipital fracture, thick subdural hematoma, and brain contusions. Montgomery, who was babysitting, ultimately (after varying descriptions) admitted to detectives that he picked Elijah up and dropped/tossed him.
- Montgomery was convicted by a jury of murder (Count I) and multiple neglect-of-a-dependent counts; the trial court later reduced one neglect count (Count III) to a Class B felony on double-jeopardy grounds and imposed an aggregate 65‑year sentence concurrent with other counts.
- Montgomery sought to introduce evidence that Elijah’s mother, Courtney, had a pattern of abusing the children (404(b) / propensity-type evidence). The trial court excluded much of that proffered evidence as irrelevant or improper 404(b)/hearsay.
- On post-conviction review the court found appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise the 404(b) exclusion on direct appeal and ordered Montgomery be allowed a second direct appeal confined to 404(b) and sufficiency issues.
- This Court (appeal from the trial-record remanded after the State dismissed its cross-appeal) (1) held the post-conviction court erred in ordering a second direct appeal (remedy should be vacation and retrial where prejudice exists), but found that error harmless here, (2) affirmed the exclusion ruling on the merits, and (3) held Count III neglect must be reduced to a Class D felony under Indiana double-jeopardy principles (remanded to enter a 3‑year consecutive sentence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court abused discretion by excluding evidence of mother’s alleged pattern of abuse (404(b), relevance, hearsay) | Exclusion was proper because the evidence was irrelevant to who inflicted the fatal injury and/or was barred by Rule 404(b) or hearsay rules | Exclusion improperly prevented defense from presenting alternate perpetrator theory and showing a pattern of abuse by Courtney | No abuse of discretion; exclusion was proper and harmless given evidence that Montgomery admitted throwing Elijah and lack of proof that death resulted from a pattern of abuse |
| Post-conviction court’s remedy — ordering a second direct appeal after finding appellate counsel ineffective | The post-conviction court’s order was permissible relief | Montgomery (and post-conviction court) argued relief limited to allowing a new direct appeal to brief the omitted issue | Court erred: remedy for ineffective appellate counsel is vacatur and, where appropriate, retrial or other corrective relief, not merely granting a second direct appeal; error was harmless here because exclusion ruling stands |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for waiving the 404(b) issue | State: appellate strategy choices are entitled to deference; waiving issues not ordinarily ineffective assistance | Montgomery: appellate counsel unreasonably failed to raise a significant, obvious 404(b) issue preserved in the record | Post-conviction court correctly found deficient performance, but appellate remedy ordered by that court was improper; appellate court reached merits and affirmed exclusion nonetheless |
| Whether the Class B neglect-of-a-dependent conviction (Count III) violates double jeopardy | State: reduction to Class B addressed double-jeopardy concern; convictions can stand | Montgomery: under Strong, where neglect conviction is based on same bodily injury that produced the death, it must be reduced to a Class D to avoid double jeopardy | Held for Montgomery: consistent with Strong, Count III must be reduced to Class D and resentenced to 3 years consecutive to murder; remanded to enter that judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient-performance and prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188 (Ind. 1997) (framework for ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel review: significant/obvious unraised issues must be clearly stronger than those raised)
- Rohr v. State, 866 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 2007) (reversed exclusion of belatedly disclosed witnesses where State’s evidence supported defense theory of mother’s pattern of abuse; exclusion not harmless)
- Lush v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (upheld exclusion of evidence about mother’s prior conduct where irrelevant to charged perpetrator’s conduct)
- Strong v. State, 870 N.E.2d 442 (Ind. 2007) (when neglect conviction is elevated by the same bodily injury that supports a murder conviction, neglect must be reduced to Class D to avoid double jeopardy)
- Gray v. State, 841 N.E.2d 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (remedy for ineffective appellate counsel may require vacating conviction and ordering retrial)