State v. A. Twardoski, 2021 MT 179

Victim I.A., age 13 in summer 2016, was sexually abused by Cody Hill beginning June 27, 2016; Hill’s abuse used a sexualized “truth-or-dare” pattern.
Thirteen days later (July 10, 2016) I.A. alleges near-identical sexual abuse by Alan Twardoski during a driving lesson; she later disclosed Twardoski’s conduct to a counselor in Oct. 2016.
I.A. initially denied a sexual relationship with Hill in June 2017 but admitted it in Jan. 2018 after a recorded jail call from Hill; Hill was later charged and pled guilty.
State charged Twardoski in March 2017; prior to trial the State produced Hill’s CCJI to the court for in camera review and the court released only pages 1–12 to defense.
At trial the district court excluded evidence of Hill’s abuse under Montana’s rape-shield statute; jury convicted Twardoski and he was sentenced.
Montana Supreme Court affirmed the court’s in-camera/disclosure decision but held the rape-shield exclusion was erroneous, reversed that ruling, and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion by not disclosing more of Hill’s CCJI after in camera review	State: in-camera review found no exculpatory material beyond pages 1–12; victim confidentiality outweighs disclosure	Twardoski: court may have failed to review audio/video/phone data; he needed full file for cross-examination and possible exculpatory evidence	Court affirmed: independent review showed nothing exculpatory beyond pages 1–12; no abuse of discretion
Whether excluding evidence of Hill’s near-contemporaneous abuse violated defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense	State: rape-shield bars evidence of victim’s prior sexual conduct; victim privacy and risk of trial-within-trial outweigh probative value	Twardoski: Hill’s identical “truth-or-dare” abuse shortly before his alleged incident is highly probative of fabrication/transfer and I.A.’s credibility	Court reversed: evidence was relevant, non‑speculative, not substantially outweighed by prejudice; exclusion misapplied rape-shield and violated defendant’s confrontation/presentation rights — new trial required

State v. Pope, 397 Mont. 95, 447 P.3d 469 (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Stutzman, 388 Mont. 133, 398 P.3d 265 (defendant entitled to in camera review of victim records for exculpatory material)
State v. Duffy, 300 Mont. 381, 6 P.3d 453 (victim confidentiality may outweigh discovery absent exculpatory need)
State v. Lake, 396 Mont. 390, 445 P.3d 1211 (rape-shield cannot bar all evidence; de novo review applies when statutory interpretation implicates constitutional rights)
State v. Walker, 394 Mont. 1, 433 P.3d 202 (appellate review de novo where exclusion implicates statutory interpretation and constitutional rights)
State v. Awbery, 382 Mont. 334, 367 P.3d 346 (articulated balancing test under rape-shield; defendant’s proffer must be more than speculative)
State v. Colburn, 382 Mont. 223, 366 P.3d 258 (reversed exclusion where prior abuse bore a straight-line connection to charged conduct)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (cross-examination is principal means to test witness credibility)
State v. MacKinnon, 288 Mont. 329, 957 P.2d 23 (purpose of rape-shield is to prevent trial of the victim)
State v. Johnson, 288 Mont. 513, 958 P.2d 1182 (speculative motive evidence insufficient to overcome rape-shield)