State v. Aguado, 387 Mont. 1

Denis Aguado (defendant) lived with Patricia and her granddaughter A.M.; A.M. alleged repeated sexual abuse by Aguado beginning in childhood.
A recorded telephone call (when A.M. was 13) and a written "sex contract" were turned over to police; Aguado was charged with Sexual Abuse of Children and Sexual Assault.
First jury found Aguado guilty of Sexual Abuse of Children and hung on Sexual Assault; second trial convicted him of Sexual Assault.
Aguado moved twice to substitute his public defender, alleging conflicts, withheld discovery, and ineffective assistance; the district court denied both motions after hearings.
District court excluded evidence about A.M.’s broader sexual history and orientation under Montana’s Rape Shield statute but allowed other contextual testimony; a juror was later excused for nondisclosure; a standard unanimity instruction was given.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Substitution of counsel	Aguado argued counsel had conflicts, withheld documents, and communication had broken down requiring new counsel	State argued Aguado failed to show an actual conflict or ineffective assistance; court had discretion	Denial affirmed: court conducted adequate inquiry and complaints were not "seemingly substantial"
2. Rape-shield exclusion & confrontation rights	Aguado sought to admit evidence of A.M.’s bisexuality and sexual plans to contextualize the recorded call	State argued such evidence is barred by § 45-5-511(2) and would improperly attack the victim’s character	Affirmed: exclusion was within discretion; proffered evidence was speculative and prejudicial; sufficient contextual evidence was allowed
3. Removal of Juror No. 5	Aguado argued juror was forthright and removal was unnecessary; State argued juror failed to disclose son’s sexual-conduct conviction	State asserted it would have used a peremptory strike had it known	Affirmed: court reasonably excused juror for nondisclosure and seated alternate; no abuse of discretion
4. Unanimity instruction	Aguado argued a more specific instruction was required because multiple incidents were alleged	State argued incidents were closely connected or continuous; standard instruction sufficed	Affirmed: pattern unanimity instruction was adequate given the facts and court’s discretion

State v. Cheetham, 373 P.3d 45 (Mont. 2016) (standard for substitution inquiry and adequacy of district court’s inquiry)
State v. Colburn, 366 P.3d 258 (Mont. 2016) (review of statutory interpretation and balancing Rape Shield against confrontation rights)
State v. Grindheim, 101 P.3d 267 (Mont. 2004) (discretion to remove a juror when ability to perform duties impaired)
State v. Dunfee, 114 P.3d 217 (Mont. 2005) (standard for reviewing jury instructions as a whole)
State v. Weaver, 964 P.2d 713 (Mont. 1998) (when unanimity instructions are required for multiple allegations)
State v. Harris, 36 P.3d 372 (Mont. 2001) (continuous-offense doctrine affecting unanimity requirement)
In re Gillham, 704 P.2d 1019 (Mont. 1985) (permitting counsel to respond in postconviction proceedings without disciplinary exposure)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (limitations on a defendant’s right to present evidence when rules serve compelling interests)