State v. Ankeny, 2010 MT 224

Ankeny was charged by information on October 15, 2008 in Deer Lodge County with Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA) a felony under § 45-5-206(1)(a), MCA.
The alleged victim, Shannon Carter, testified on trial that this was their first date and that nothing physical occurred; she admitted heavy intoxication.
Carter initially told police she and Ankeny were in a dating relationship and that he choked her, but she later sent letters asking that charges be dropped and claimed the statements were false.
Ankeny testified that on the night in question he removed the car keys, Carter left the car, and he either fell asleep or was later found by police; he denied harming Carter.
Evidence showed Carter lived with another partner (Nisbet) and that Ankeny and Carter had a longer, potentially intimate relationship beyond a single date, including cohabitation with Nisbet at one point.
The State introduced expert testimony by Joe Thompson that domestic-violence victims may recant, and the prosecutor framed it as a general explanation for recantation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of partner evidence	State: Carter and Ankeny were in a dating/ongoing intimate relationship; thus they were partners.	Ankeny: only a first date; no dating/ongoing intimate relationship; not a partner.	Evidence supports a dating/ongoing intimate relationship; sufficient to show partnership
Admission of expert testimony on recantation	Thompson's testimony explains why DV victims recant; admissible foundationally and helps jurors.	Testimony was inflammatory, prejudicial, and improperly bolstered credibility; hearsay concerns.	District Court did not err; Thompson testified to general phenomenon, with proper foundation
Effectiveness of trial counsel	Counsel failed to object to hearsay and other prejudicial material; trial errors harmed defense.	Record shows either proper handling or issues best resolved in postconviction; some objections waived or explained.	Some claims dismissed without prejudice for postconviction; others not demonstrated on direct appeal

State v. Potter, 347 Mont. 38 (2008 MT 381) (sufficiency review in criminal cases)
State v. Weigand, 328 Mont. 198 (2005 MT 201) (elements and reasonable doubt standard)
In re K.M.G., 356 Mont. 91 (2010 MT 81) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning rule)
State v. Trull, 332 Mont. 233 (2006 MT 119) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning)
State v. Stringer, 897 P.2d 1069 (1995 MT 271) (battered spouse syndrome admissibility; limited witness aid)
State v. Harris, 808 P.2d 453 (1991 MT 247) (credibility/expert testimony standards)
State v. Herman, 204 P.3d 1254 (2009 MT 101) (habeas-like doctrine; evidentiary foundations)
State v. Lias, 706 P.2d 500 (1985 MT 128) (motion in limine and evidentiary preservation)
Cooper v. Hanson, 356 Mont. 309 (2010 MT 113) (motion in limine; evidentiary discretion)