State v. C. Ankeny, 417 P.3d 275

In April and May 2012 Vonnie (then-fiancée) allegedly suffered two separate domestic-violence incidents by Carl Ankeny (April: strangulation, knife; May: elbow to face, purported theft of her car).
State charged two informations: DC 13-249 (April: assault with a weapon, criminal endangerment, PFMA) and DC 13-250 (May: PFMA, failure to register, unauthorized use of a vehicle).
At omnibus the State waived joinder; first trial (April incident) proceeded, State agreed to exclude May-incident evidence and letter contents if defense did not attack delay in reporting. First jury deadlocked; foreman reported juror confusion including inference of a delayed report.
After the mistrial the State moved to join the two cases for retrial; the district court granted joinder. In the second (consolidated) trial the court admitted five unredacted letters Ankeny wrote from jail; jury convicted on assault with a weapon, two PFMA counts, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
Ankeny appealed, arguing (1) district court erred by allowing joinder after State waived it at omnibus, (2) letters from jail were improperly admitted, and (3) the court erred by denying a mistrial for a witness statement referencing prior violence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ankeny)	Held
1) Was joinder proper after State waived it at omnibus?	Post-mistrial facts (juror feedback revealing confusion about delayed reporting) and judicial economy justify relief from waiver and joinder.	State waived joinder at omnibus; relief from waiver requires good cause the State did not show; district court failed to make a good-cause finding.	Court affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion granting relief from waiver (good cause) and joining cases balancing judicial economy vs. prejudice.
2) Were Ankeny’s jail letters admissible?	Letters contained admissions, efforts to influence victim, and explained delayed reporting/domestic violence dynamics; redaction impractical.	Letters were impermissible other‑acts evidence and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403; State could have used redaction or excerpts.	Court affirmed: letters admissible for proper purposes under Rule 404(b) and not substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403; cautionary instruction given.
3) Was denial of mistrial for witness reference to prior violence error?	Reference showed victim’s state of mind (fear) and was vague; curative jury instruction sufficed.	Single statement about prior violence was improper 404(b) evidence and highly prejudicial—mistrial required.	Court affirmed: cautionary instruction cured any prejudice; no denial of fair trial.

State v. VonBergen, 317 Mont. 445, 77 P.3d 537 (2003) (discusses relief from waiver of pretrial objections)
State v. Enright, 303 Mont. 457, 16 P.3d 366 (2000) (joinder/severance balancing test: judicial economy v. defendant prejudice)
State v. Greywater, 282 Mont. 28, 939 P.2d 975 (1997) (no good cause to excuse waiver where counsel knew facts earlier)
State v. Southern, 294 Mont. 225, 980 P.2d 3 (1999) (types of prejudice from joinder; defendant must show substantial prejudice)
State v. Blaz, 388 Mont. 105, 398 P.3d 247 (2017) (Rule 404(b) analysis: permissible non‑character purposes)
State v. Lotter, 372 Mont. 445, 313 P.3d 148 (2013) (district court’s discretion on relevance and admissibility reviewed for abuse)
State v. Criswell, 370 Mont. 511, 305 P.3d 760 (2013) (mistrial standard; trial judge’s discretion on effect of events on jury)
State v. Bollman, 364 Mont. 265, 272 P.3d 650 (2012) (mistrial and whether inadmissible evidence may have contributed to conviction)