State v. D. Strang, 2017 MT 217

Daryl Strang, who assisted 83-year-old Ben Poat, received powers of attorney, gifts, and checks from Poat totaling over $142,000; Adult Protective Services later initiated guardianship/conservatorship after concerns about Poat's dementia and self-care.
In the related guardianship/conservatorship proceedings Judge Ed McLean entered orders invalidating Poat's will and Strang’s powers of attorney and ordering return of some property to Poat’s conservator.
The State charged Strang with Abuse or Exploitation of an Older Person; Judge McLean presided over the criminal trial beginning January 12, 2015; Strang did not seek recusal at trial.
Shortly before trial the State disclosed two title-company witnesses (10 days before) and additional Wells Fargo bank records (3 days before) showing many canceled checks to Strang; the defense moved to exclude and for sanctions.
The jury convicted Strang of abuse/neglect and exploitation; the district court denied a new trial (challenging late disclosures and alleged juror misconduct) and sentenced Strang; Strang appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Strang)	Held
1. Whether Strang was entitled to a disqualification hearing for Judge McLean	Judge’s prior involvement in related guardianship/conservatorship was disclosed; no timely recusal; no actual extrajudicial bias alleged	Judge should have been recused because he presided and ruled against Strang in related proceedings and thus had bias/personal knowledge	Court: Claim untimely and waived; prior judicial rulings in related proceedings do not show disqualifying bias or extrajudicial knowledge; no hearing required
2. Whether late disclosure of witnesses and Wells Fargo records warranted exclusion/sanctions	State promptly disclosed the new witnesses and records once learned; non-willful, minimal prejudice; trial court has discretion to decline sanctions	Late disclosures ambushed defense and deprived Strang of time to prepare; exclusion or new trial warranted	Court: No abuse of discretion; disclosures were promptly made when discovered and Strang showed no prejudice
3. Whether alleged juror misconduct required a new trial	Juror incidents were either non-prejudicial (alternate juror) or unsupported (no evidence Bailiff agreed); trial court well-positioned to assess prejudice	Extraneous statements and alleged Bailiff agreement tainted jury and require a new trial	Court: No abuse of discretion; presumption of prejudice not triggered or rebutted; no showing of actual prejudice

Draggin' Y Cattle Co. v. Junkermier, 387 Mont. 430 (Mont. 2017) (de novo review and standards for judicial disqualification)
State v. Lozon, 367 Mont. 424 (Mont. 2012) (district court’s admissibility rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Pierce, 385 Mont. 439 (Mont. 2016) (factors for discovery sanctions and when late disclosure may be excused)