State v. Chafee
332 P.3d 240
Mont.2014Background
- Chafee was convicted by a jury in Missoula County of accountability for arson and theft, both felonies.
- The State charged Chafee and Robinson; Robinson pleaded guilty to arson and theft.
- Defense theory framed Chafee as “merely present” at the scene, not participating.
- Trial occurred January 2–3, 2013; State sought accountability instructions and presented evidence of acts by Robinson.
- The defense did not request the “mere presence” jury instruction; the State’s closing argued Chafee’s guilt based on presence and inaction.
- The court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial on both charges trial court proceedings pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense IAC claim is reviewable on direct appeal | Chafee’s counsel failed to request the “mere presence” instruction; IAC merits review | State contends IAC claims belong in post-conviction review, not direct appeal | Issue not sustained; Court addresses IAC on direct appeal |
| Whether counsel’s failure to request “mere presence” instruction was deficient | No plausible reason to exclude the instruction; theory of defense required it | Evidence showed Chafee participated; instruction unnecessary | Deficient performance established; new trial warranted |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct requires new trial | Prosecutor urged jurors to rely on non-evidentiary factors | Argument fell within permissible closing strategy | Improper; requires relief though Court grants remand on other grounds |
| Whether cumulative error warrants new trial | Cumulative impact of errors prejudices Chafee | Single errors insufficient for new trial, no cumulative error shown | Court declines to decide due to ruling on Issue 1; remand for new trial nonetheless |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ugalde, 372 Mont. 234 (2013 MT 308) (ineffective assistance standard on direct appeal; mixed questions of law and fact reviewed de novo)
- State v. Kougl, 323 Mont. 6 (2004 MT 243) (dismissal without prejudice when no plausible justification for action; need for postconviction relief)
- Garrett v. State, 328 Mont. 165 (2005 MT 197) (potentially beneficial instruction; objective unreasonableness standard)
- State v. Rogers, 306 Mont. 130 (2001 MT 165) (overruled in part on other grounds; postconviction context cited)
- Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90 (2008 MT 140) (postconviction context on IAC; not binding directly on direct appeal)
- State v. Lantis, 289 Mont. 480 (1998 MT 172) (aiding and abetting requires knowledge and actions; mere presence not enough)