City of Helena v. R. Strobel, 390 P.3d 921

Strobel was charged with partner or family member assault (§ 45-5-206(1)(a), MCA) after his wife, Bridget Rogers, told police he grabbed her by the face and punched her twice while trying to force her into a pickup truck.
Officer Cook testified Rogers was crying, smelled of alcohol, and told him Strobel hit her; Rogers refused medical attention and had no visible injuries.
Bystander Thomas Baty testified he saw Strobel trying to push Rogers into the truck and that she resisted; he did not see any blows or hear cries for help.
At trial Rogers recanted her prior statement, testified she was drunk and could not recall the events, and denied Strobel struck her in the face.
Municipal Court convicted Strobel; the District Court affirmed. Strobel appealed arguing the only evidence of "bodily injury" was Rogers’s prior inconsistent statement and that such a statement, uncorroborated, is insufficient to support conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove "bodily injury" under § 45-5-206(1)(a)	State: Rogers’s prior inconsistent statement to police plus circumstantial evidence (Rogers’s demeanor; Baty’s observation of forcible pushing) corroborate the assertion that Strobel caused physical pain.	Strobel: Rogers’s recantation leaves no independent evidence of bodily injury; a prior inconsistent statement alone cannot sustain the element.	Affirmed: Court held Rogers’s prior statement, admitted as substantive evidence and corroborated by reliable circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to prove bodily injury beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Torres, 369 Mont. 516, 299 P.3d 804 (2013) (prior inconsistent statements may be corroborated by independent, reliable circumstantial evidence)
State v. White Water, 194 Mont. 85, 634 P.2d 636 (1981) (prior inconsistent statement alone is insufficient to sustain conviction)
State v. Giant, 307 Mont. 74, 37 P.3d 49 (2001) (two unreliable forms of evidence cannot be combined to create reliable proof of guilt)
State v. Charlo, 226 Mont. 213, 735 P.2d 278 (1987) (circumstantial testimony placing defendant near victim with a weapon can corroborate prior inconsistent statements)
State v. Spottedbear, 385 Mont. 68, 380 P.3d 810 (2016) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Finley, 360 Mont. 173, 252 P.3d 199 (2011) (circumstantial evidence can support PFMA elements when victim recants)
State v. Vukasin, 317 Mont. 204, 75 P.3d 1284 (2003) (elements may be established by circumstantial evidence; reasonable-apprehension analysis)