State v. C. Russell, 411 P.3d 1260

Defendant Clayton Russell was tried for felony DUI (fourth-or-subsequent) after pleading guilty to two misdemeanor traffic counts; jury convicted him after a two-day trial.
During individual voir dire defense counsel questioned jurors; prospective juror Kaylie Utter was excused for cause after stating family experiences with drunk driving “definitely affect[ed]” her opinions and she might infer guilt from refusing a breath test.
The next prospective juror, Donald Platisha, disclosed similar traumatic experiences (family injured/killed by a drunk driver) and initially said he “might be in the same position” as Utter and that he “don’t know” whether he could be fair.
Defense counsel moved to strike Platisha for cause; the District Court asked follow-up questions and the prosecutor conducted rehabilitative questioning during which Platisha affirmed he believed he could be fair.
The District Court denied the for-cause challenge to Platisha; Russell used a peremptory to remove him and exhausted his remaining peremptories.
On appeal Russell argued the denial of the for-cause challenge was erroneous and the prosecutor’s rehabilitative questioning improperly coerced a recantation; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding the court did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred denying a for-cause challenge to a juror who disclosed personal experiences with drunk driving	State: Platisha affirmed he could be fair; no fixed opinion or disqualifying bias shown	Russell: Platisha’s experiences and equivocal answers ("I don’t know") raised serious doubt about impartiality and prosecutor rehabilitated him improperly	Court: No abuse of discretion; Platisha did not express a fixed opinion and affirmed ability to be fair, so denial was proper

State v. Richeson, 321 Mont. 126, 89 P.3d 958 (Mont. 2004) (standard that denial of a for-cause challenge reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Good, 309 Mont. 113, 43 P.3d 948 (Mont. 2002) (abuse in denying valid for-cause challenge can be structural error)
Great Falls Tribune v. Dist. Court of Eighth Judicial Dist., 186 Mont. 433, 608 P.2d 116 (Mont. 1980) (jurors disqualified when they have fixed opinions they cannot set aside)
State v. Heath, 320 Mont. 211, 89 P.3d 947 (Mont. 2004) (similar prior-experience juror upheld where juror affirmed ability to be fair and demeanor did not show inability to be impartial)
State v. Rogers, 339 Mont. 132, 168 P.3d 669 (Mont. 2007) (experiential similarity alone does not establish disqualifying bias)
State v. DeVore, 292 Mont. 325, 972 P.2d 816 (Mont. 1998) (courts should be wary of coaxed recantations in voir dire)