Garding v. State, 466 P.3d 501

Background

On Jan. 1, 2008 Bronson Parsons was struck and killed on Highway 200; witnesses described a dark SUV or truck that left the scene. Garding was later charged with vehicular homicide and related offenses.
At trial the State’s medical expert (Dr. Dale) testified the pattern/height of a bumper was consistent with Parsons’ calf injuries; defense expert (Dr. Bennett) testified Garding’s bumper could not have caused those bruises. The State did not perform or present an accident reconstruction.
Key eyewitness/bystander testimony (including Garding’s then-boyfriend Bordeaux) and investigatory leads (e.g., a tip from Cornell, and a 911 caller Weiss) produced credibility disputes central to the jury’s resolution. The jury convicted Garding; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and certiorari was denied.
Garding timely filed a postconviction relief (PCR) petition asserting: ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) for failing to hire an accident reconstructionist; Brady violations for suppressed victim x‑rays and photos from an unrelated 2005 vehicle‑pedestrian collision; and that post‑trial accident reconstructions constituted newly discovered evidence.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the State on some claims, held hearings, denied the PCR petition, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial as to IAC, Brady, and newly discovered evidence (majority opinion). Justices Gustafson and McKinnon dissented on Brady and IAC issues.

Issues

Issue	Garding's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to hire accident reconstructionist	Trial counsel’s omission was not strategic and deprived Garding of expert analysis that would have refuted the State’s impact theory	Counsel presented a robust defense (cross‑examination, alternate experts, impeachment); choice not to hire recon was within reasonable trial strategy	Denied — counsel’s performance not shown to be outside professionally competent range (Strickland prong 1 not met)
Brady — victim x‑rays withheld	X‑rays in Crime Lab were exculpatory; counsel ordered production and the defense would have used them to impeach Dr. Dale	X‑rays were in Crime Lab (not prosecutor) and were known/used by defense and defense expert; no suppression by prosecutor, not material	Denied — no Brady violation; x‑rays were not suppressed by prosecutor and were not shown to be materially outcome‑changing
Brady — 2005 vehicle‑pedestrian photos withheld	Photos in State expert’s file would have supported defense theory and impeached Dr. Dale’s opinions	Photos were obtained independently by the expert after his testimony, not used in forming opinions, and would likely be irrelevant or immaterial	Denied — photos not shown to be suppressed, exculpatory, or material
Newly discovered evidence — post‑trial accident reconstructions	New recon analyses show Garding’s vehicle could not have produced the injuries and are newly discovered evidence warranting relief	Reconstructions are merely new analysis of evidence available at trial; not "newly discovered" for purposes of PCR	Denied — expert analyses are new interpretations of existing evidence, not newly discovered evidence qualifying for relief

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (Brady prejudice standard; evaluate cumulative effect that could undermine confidence in verdict)
Amando v. Gonzalez, 758 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2014) (defense cannot ignore evidence it has been given; discussed in Montana cases on disclosure/diligence)
United States v. De Watson, 792 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2015) (DNA testing unavailable at trial may qualify as newly discovered evidence)
State v. Hudon, 434 P.3d 273 (Mont. 2019) (distinguishes Crime Lab possession from prosecutor possession for Brady/discovery duties)
State v. Weisbarth, 378 P.3d 1195 (Mont. 2016) (prosecutor must disclose the substance of records ordered produced when they are in prosecutor’s possession)
Kenfield v. State, 377 P.3d 1207 (Mont. 2016) (post‑trial expert reanalysis of the same evidence is not newly discovered evidence)
Marble v. State, 355 P.3d 742 (Mont. 2015) (timely PCRs asserting new evidence still require court evaluation using established factors)