State v. D. Smith, 476 P.3d 1178

Background

Darrell Smith was arrested and charged with PFMA (partner or family member assault), stalking, and solicitation/tampering; the State later dismissed the PFMA and stalking counts the morning of trial after a voir dire that extensively addressed domestic violence.
The State began voir dire and opening emphasizing domestic-violence themes and the dismissed charges while its main witness was not present; Smith moved for mistrial, which the District Court effectively denied.
At trial on the remaining solicitation/tampering count, the State introduced extrinsic evidence (phone records, text messages, jail calls, and officer testimony about Smith denying possession of a smartphone) and elicited other-bad-act evidence to impeach Smith’s credibility; the court overruled Smith’s repeated 404/608 and relevance objections.
Smith testified; the State continued to probe phone/text and other conduct (including calls with a friend, Whitney) on cross and in rebuttal; Smith was convicted and sentenced to prison.
On appeal Smith argued cumulative error from voir dire/opening emphasis on dismissed charges and improper admission of extrinsic bad-act evidence; the Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on cumulative-error grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Voir dire and opening that emphasized dismissed PFMA/stalking counts	Telling jurors context about the underlying investigation and victim non-cooperation was proper background; dismissal later did not negate relevance	Voir dire primed and prejudiced the jury by framing Smith as a domestic-violence offender and tainted empanelment; mistrial required	Court: Voir dire/opening emphasis on dismissed violent charges prejudiced Smith; curative instruction insufficient in context — contributed to reversal under cumulative error
Admission of extrinsic phone/text evidence through officers (404/608)	Evidence impeached Smith’s credibility and showed continuing conduct relevant to the tampering prosecution	Texts, phone evidence, and officers’ testimony about prior statements were irrelevant to solicitation charge and inadmissible as extrinsic bad acts	Court: Much of the extrinsic evidence was not intrinsic to the tampering offense and was improperly admitted as impeachment; admission was error
Use of impeachment before defendant testified and scope of cross-examination	Anticipatory impeachment was justified because Smith indicated he intended to testify; evidence showed lack of truthfulness	Impeachment must follow defendant testimony or be used in rebuttal; State improperly used other witnesses in its case-in-chief to impeach anticipated testimony	Court: Proactive impeachment via other witnesses in State’s case-in-chief exceeded proper use of Rule 608 and cross-examination limits; error
Adequacy of curative instructions to cure prejudice	Jury instructions and admonitions cured any prejudice from voir dire/opening and evidentiary rulings	Prejudice was pervasive and not cured by instructions; cumulative effect deprived Smith of a fair trial	Court: Curative instructions were inadequate given cumulative errors; reversal required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cunningham, 414 P.3d 289 (Mont. 2018) (standard of review and cumulative-error framework)
State v. Ellison, 428 P.3d 826 (Mont. 2018) (admitting intrinsic or inextricably intertwined evidence to provide a complete picture)
State v. Fleming, 449 P.3d 1234 (Mont. 2019) (manner and timing of exposing jury to prior bad conduct can exacerbate prejudice)
State v. Camitsch, 626 P.2d 1250 (Mont. 1981) (cross-examination and scope for impeaching witness credibility)
State v. McClean, 587 P.2d 20 (Mont. 1978) (Rule 608 limits on proof of specific instances by extrinsic evidence)
In re Seizure of $23,691.00 in U.S. Currency, 905 P.2d 148 (Mont. 1995) (Rule 608 narrowly construed; specific instances admissible only on cross-examination)
State v. Smith, 916 P.2d 773 (Mont. 1996) (party-opponent admissions under the hearsay rules)