State v. Clemans, 2018 MT 187

In July 2014, 16-year-old A.P. disclosed to her mother Hester that her stepfather, Michael Lee Clemans, had inappropriately touched her on three nights about four years earlier; a forensic interview of A.P. was recorded that month.
State charged Clemans with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent (one count per alleged night).
At the 2016 jury trial the jury acquitted on Count I, was undecided on Count II, and convicted on Count III; Clemans was sentenced to 100 years with 92 years suspended.
During trial Hester testified about family tension and A.P.’s fear; on redirect she described a 2013 incident in which Clemans punched A.P.’s older brother (black eye) to explain why Hester and A.P. did not immediately leave after the disclosure.
The jury viewed the recorded forensic interview at trial; the court admitted the video into evidence and, over no contemporaneous objection, allowed the video to accompany the jury into the deliberation room (transcript did not go to jury).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of testimony about Clemans's assault on victim’s brother	State: testimony was proper rebuttal to explain Hester/A.P.’s fear and why they returned home	Clemans: testimony was inadmissible character/other-acts evidence under M. R. Evid. 404	Court: Clemans opened the door by cross-examining Hester; limited redirect explanation was allowed and no abuse of discretion
Jury access to forensic interview video during deliberations	Clemans: sending the video to the jury room unduly emphasized testimonial evidence; plain error or ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object	State: video was admitted evidence and permitted to accompany exhibits; no showing jury watched it or was equipped to view it	Court: declined plain-error relief; counsel not shown to be ineffective because record lacks reasonable probability result would differ

State v. Flowers, 391 Mont. 237, 416 P.3d 180 (2018) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
State v. Guill, 355 Mont. 490, 228 P.3d 1152 (2010) (opposing party may rebut when adverse party opens the door)
State v. Veis, 289 Mont. 450, 962 P.2d 1153 (1998) (same principle regarding opening the door)
State v. Bales, 297 Mont. 402, 994 P.2d 17 (1999) (caution about allowing juries to rehear testimonial evidence during deliberations)
State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 915 P.2d 208 (1995) (plain-error review of unpreserved claims that implicate fundamental rights)
Lehrkamp v. State, 388 Mont. 295, 400 P.3d 697 (2017) (standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims under Strickland)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)