City of Missoula v. Leuchtman, 2017 MT 303N

In 2015 Angela Miller obtained an order of protection directing Stephen Leuchtman to stay 1,500 feet from her workplace at 350 Ryman Street.
On January 27, 2016 Miller saw and photographed Leuchtman driving past the entrance to 350 Ryman; Leuchtman said he had been at his attorney’s office nearby and passed the location to avoid driving behind Miller.
Leuchtman was charged with Violation of an Order of Protection; pretrial release conditions prohibited him from being within 1,500 feet of Miller and from having any contact, and later restricted his internet-capable devices.
Leuchtman unsuccessfully moved to dismiss for lack of speedy trial and sought a jury instruction based on a “choice of two evils” defense; municipal court denied both and a jury convicted him.
On appeal to the Fourth Judicial District Court those rulings were affirmed; Leuchtman then appealed to the Montana Supreme Court raising new claims about bond/conditions and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
The Supreme Court declined to consider the bond/conditions claims (not raised below) and reviewed de novo Leuchtman’s ineffective assistance claims, ultimately affirming the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of bond revocation and release conditions	City/State relied on municipal/district court procedure and safety concerns	Leuchtman argued conditions were unreasonable and prejudiced his defense and access to counsel/courts	Procedurally barred on appeal to Supreme Court because not raised in District Court; Court did not consider merits
Ineffective assistance — counsel failed to move to dismiss for infringement of access to counsel/courts	State argued record shows Leuchtman had continued access to counsel and courts; no prejudice	Leuchtman argued counsel should have moved to dismiss on constitutional denial of access grounds	Denied — Leuchtman failed to show deficient performance prejudiced the defense; access to counsel/courts continued
Ineffective assistance — failure to preserve/obtain a “choice of two evils” jury instruction	State argued the proposed instruction was unsupported by law and facts; compulsion addressed by § 45-2-212, MCA	Leuchtman argued counsel should have preserved and obtained the instruction	Denied — instruction inapplicable because facts did not support a compulsion defense; trial court properly rejected it

State v. Longfellow, 194 P.3d 694 (2008) (avoiding review of issues raised for first time on appeal)
State v. Lucero, 97 P.3d 1106 (2004) (ineffective assistance claims are mixed questions reviewed de novo)
Whitlow v. State, 183 P.3d 861 (2008) (adopting Strickland two-part test for ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Arlington, 875 P.2d 307 (1994) (trial court may reject unsupported jury instructions; compulsion statute addresses similar issues)