State v. Champagne, 305 P.3d 61

Champagne was convicted of felony sexual assault in Hill County after trial.
J.B., age 10, testified that Champagne touched her inappropriately at her grandmother Ramona's house in 2010.
Lamere was not removed for cause despite reservations about a defendant not testifying; Herdina served on the jury.
Matkin testified as a forensic interviewer; the court admitted her lay opinion under 701 regarding coaching and her impressions.
J.B.'s prior consistent statements were admitted via Falcon and Matkin after Champagne opened the door by alleging coaching or fabrication; statements predated alleged improper influence.
Judgment imposed a 40-year prison sentence and restitution with ongoing future costs; non-binding recommendations to the DOC were included; restitution amount for future costs must be specified on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of for-cause removal of Lamere	State contends Lamere could be impartial despite reservations	Champagne argues Lamere was not impartial and should be removed	No abuse of discretion; Lamere could follow the court's instructions.
Effectiveness of counsel re Herdina bias	State/Champagne claim counsel failed to probe Herdina's bias	Champagne asserts ineffective assistance for not questioning Herdina	Post-conviction review appropriate; record on direct appeal insufficient to resolve; remand for ICA claim.
Admissibility of Matkin's testimony	State relies on Matkin's training to identify coaching	Champagne argues lack of proper expert qualification	Proper lay opinion under M.R.E. 701 due to training.
Admission of J.B.’s prior consistent statements	State used Falcon and Matkin to corroborate J.B.'s trial statements	Champagne argues no pre-coaching statements before alleged coaching	Proper under M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B); doors opened by defense; statements predate coaching.
Illegal sentence / restitution and remorse considerations	State contends sentence rests on permissible factors	Champagne argues lack of explicit basis in remorse overstepped	Remand to set a specified restitution amount; non-binding community supervision recommendations permissible.

State v. Jay, 369 Mont. 332 (2013 MT 79) (abuse-of-discretion standard forfor-cause juror challenges; voir dire considerations)
State v. Freshment, 43 P.3d 968 (2002 MT 61) (bias and inability to follow law; failure to dismiss jurors for cause)
State v. Upshaw, 335 Mont. 162 (2006 MT 341) (ineffective-assistance-on-appeal standard; record-based analysis)
State v. Henderson, 125 P.3d 1132 (2005 MT 333) (admissibility of evidence; lay vs expert)
State v. McOmber, 173 P.3d 690 (2007 MT 340) (prior consistent statements admissibility; door-opening rule)
State v. Frasure, 100 P.3d 1013 (2004 MT 305) (lay opinion by trained witness; foundation of testimony)
State v. Morris, 245 P.3d 512 (2010 MT 259) (remorse and lack of remorse in sentencing factors)
State v. Shreves, 60 P.3d 991 (2002 MT 333) (remand/review when sentence influenced by lack of remorse)
State v. Heafner, 231 P.3d 1087 (2010 MT 87) (specified restitution amount requirement)