State v. Aker
2013 MT 253
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Aker was charged by information with one count of sexual intercourse without consent relating to an alleged incident with C.Y. between November and December 2009.
- Trial occurred over four days in May 2011 in Powell County, Montana, with no eyewitnesses to the incident.
- C.Y., then 12, testified about being assaulted at a family friend’s home while others were present.
- The defense argued Aker could not have committed the act due to a back injury and that he was not at the house that night; the State relied on C.Y.’s credibility.
- The State’s closing argument emphasized C.Y.’s credibility and attacked defense witnesses’ motives; Aker did not object to these statements.
- Aker appeals claiming prosecutorial plain error in closing argument and ineffective assistance for failure to object to hearsay testimony; the court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain error review for prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument | Aker argues prosecutorial comments on witness credibility violated rights to a fair trial | State contends plain error review not warranted and comments were permissible contextually | No plain error; claims waived by failure to object; arguments evaluated in context of entire closing |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to hearsay evidence | Aker asserts defense counsel failed to object to multiple hearsay statements bolstering the victim’s credibility | State claims strategic, tactical reasons for not objecting; record insufficient to challenge trial strategy | No direct appeal basis; appellate record insufficient to establish deficient performance; claims dismissed without prejudice for postconviction review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hayden, 345 Mont. 252, 190 P.3d 1091 (2008 MT 274) (prosecutorial conduct; credibility closing arguments; plain error framework)
- State v. McDonald, 349 Mont. 507, 204 P.3d 1213 (2009 MT 82) (closing argument proper when tied to evidence and jury instructions; not plain error)
- State v. Lindberg, 347 Mont. 76, 196 P.3d 1252 (2008 MT 389) (no plain error for prosecutor's credibility remarks in closing; waiver by no objection)
- State v. Rose, 348 Mont. 291, 202 P.3d 749 (2009 MT 4) (objection rules; when not record-based may bar plain error review)
- State v. Racz, 339 Mont. 218, 168 P.3d 685 (2007 MT 244) (pros. comments on witness credibility; limitations; preservation by objection)