State v. Anderson, 446 P.3d 1134

In March 2017 a jury convicted Bruce Anderson of sexual intercourse without consent, burglary, and sexual assault arising from alleged sexual contact after a night of drinking; Locher reported the incident to police in November 2015.
During voir dire the court instructed jurors not to discuss the case while they were excused for peremptory strikes.
While jurors were out, panelist M.J. told the bailiff he was "pretty sure the Defendant is guilty," later describing only a "leaning" based on defense counsel's voir dire questions and expressing concern he might not be able to "push those sort of things all the way to the side."
Defense moved to strike M.J. for cause; after chambers questioning the court found M.J. could keep an open mind and denied the challenge, empaneling and swearing the jury (including M.J.).
On appeal the Montana Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the challenge for cause; it reversed and remanded, concluding M.J.'s repeated, spontaneous statements raised serious doubts about his impartiality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Anderson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a challenge for cause to juror M.J.	M.J. spontaneously declared he was "pretty sure" Anderson was guilty and repeatedly expressed bias against non-testifying defendants, showing an unequivocal, disqualifying bias.	M.J. only expressed a "leaning" or slight preconception and repeatedly said he would try and could keep an open mind and follow instructions, so denial was within discretion.	Court held the denial was an abuse of discretion; M.J.'s statements raised serious doubt about impartiality. Conviction reversed and case remanded.
Whether the burglary jury instruction correctly addressed the statute's two-part mental-state requirement	Anderson argued the instruction failed to convey the statute's separate mental-state elements.	State defended the instruction as given.	Court declined to decide on the merits but noted the instruction could be clarified on retrial to reflect the statute's distinct mental-state elements.

State v. Cudd, 375 Mont. 215, 326 P.3d 417 (standard: abuse of discretion for challenge-for-cause; structural error if improperly denied)
State v. Jay, 369 Mont. 332, 298 P.3d 396 (distinguishes fixed opinion from mere preconception; willingness to follow instructions can sustain juror)
State v. DeVore, 292 Mont. 325, 972 P.2d 816 (jurors who insist defendant "must be guilty of something" are disqualifying)
State v. Falls Down, 318 Mont. 219, 79 P.3d 797 (media-formed opinions may be excused when juror agrees to set them aside after questioning)
State v. Champagne, 371 Mont. 35, 305 P.3d 61 (juror suspicious of non-testifying defendants may still qualify if, after instruction, agrees to follow law)
State v. Johnson, 395 Mont. 169, 437 P.3d 147 (multiple spontaneous statements demonstrating likely inability to set bias aside are disqualifying)
State v. Good, 309 Mont. 113, 43 P.3d 948 (improper denial of challenge for cause can be structural error)
Swan v. State, 331 Mont. 188, 130 P.3d 606 (structural error requiring reversal)
State v. Van Kirk, 306 Mont. 215, 32 P.3d 735 (structural-error discussion)