State v. B. McGhee, 492 P.3d 518

In 2018 McGhee was charged with two counts of indecent exposure to a minor based on allegations that he exposed his penis to his nine-year-old twin daughters. A jury convicted him on one count and acquitted on the other.
There existed an earlier (2015) North Dakota allegation (investigated, no criminal charges) that Mother had reported; a temporary civil order suspended his contact for ~2 years, later reinstated after reunification therapy.
The District Court granted an in limine ruling barring the State from introducing or referencing the North Dakota materials under the State’s initially proffered 404(b) theory.
At trial McGhee (and family witnesses) testified he had an “awesome” relationship with the girls; the State then sought—and the court allowed—limited cross-examination about the prior North Dakota allegations to impeach/rebut that testimony. The jury heard limited references to the prior investigation (no graphic particulars).
Sentenced to a 50-year term with 42 years suspended and parole restrictions tied to sex-offender treatment, McGhee appealed contesting (1) the mid-trial allowance of cross-examination about the prior allegation and (2) that his sentence was unduly harsh.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McGhee)	Held
Whether the court erred by allowing cross-examination about a prior North Dakota allegation	The limited cross-examination was admissible to impeach/rebut McGhee’s testimony that he had an “awesome” relationship with his daughters (non-propensity purposes under Rules 404(b)/404(a)/607)	McGhee said his general statement about a good relationship did not "open the door" to otherwise excluded prior-act evidence and the in limine exclusion should not have been reversed	Court: McGhee opened the door; limited cross-examination admissible to impeach/rebut and to correct the false impression; no abuse of discretion (any limiting-instruction issue not preserved)
Whether the sentence is unduly harsh and reviewable on direct appeal	State: Sentence is eligible for statutory sentence review, so undue-harshness/equitable challenge must proceed via sentence-review process, not direct appeal	McGhee: Sentence is unduly harsh	Court: Sentence-review procedure applies; undue-harshness claim not reviewable on direct appeal; appeal as to sentence denied

State v. Madplume, 386 Mont. 368, 390 P.3d 142 (2017) (discusses admissibility of other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b) for non-propensity purposes)
State v. Pelletier, 401 Mont. 454, 473 P.3d 991 (2020) (explains "multiple admissibility" and 404(b) balancing)
State v. Passmore, 355 Mont. 187, 225 P.3d 1229 (2010) (describes impeachment by contradiction and its twofold effect)
State v. Salvagni, 358 Mont. 325, 246 P.3d 415 (2010) (clarifies 404(b) is not a categorical bar and outlines non-propensity exceptions)
State v. Guill, 355 Mont. 490, 228 P.3d 1152 (2010) (holding defendant may "open the door" to otherwise excluded evidence to correct a false impression)
State v. Clemans, 392 Mont. 214, 422 P.3d 1210 (2018) (approved admission of other-acts evidence to explain/correct an asserted false impression about why witnesses stayed)
State v. Polak, 392 Mont. 90, 422 P.3d 112 (2018) (discusses impeachment/rebuttal and other-acts relevance)
State v. Derbyshire, 349 Mont. 114, 201 P.3d 811 (2009) (district court's broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
State v. Blaz, 388 Mont. 105, 398 P.3d 247 (2017) (addressing limiting instructions and prejudice balancing)