State v. David Walton, 318 P.3d 1024

In December 2011, 11-year-old K.T. awoke to Walton on her bed; she testified he kissed her, touched her chest and rubbed her "lower area." Her half-brother J.B. heard Walton enter and later K.T. told J.B. and then the school counselor. A forensic interview and medical exam followed.
Walton was charged with two counts of felony sexual assault; at trial he argued J.B. pressured K.T. to fabricate the allegation and presented J.L. (the children's mother) as a defense witness.
While J.L. testified, the district judge sua sponte asked clarifying questions about which children had which fathers; counsel declined further questioning and the witness was excused.
The State’s forensic interviewer testified K.T.’s statements were "consistent with a child who has experienced sexual abuse." In closing the prosecutor repeatedly characterized K.T. and J.B.’s testimony as reflective of actual experience rather than a fabrication.
The jury convicted Walton on one count, acquitted on the other; Walton moved for a new trial arguing prosecutorial comment on credibility and that the court’s questioning of J.L. impaired his defense; the court denied the motion and Walton appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor committed plain error by commenting on witness credibility in closing	State: prosecutor argued reasonable inferences from evidence and witness testimony; argument was proper evaluation of evidence	Walton: prosecutor impermissibly vouched, implied personal, omniscient knowledge that witnesses were truthful, invading jury's province; plain error review warranted	Court: declined plain-error review; comments were based on evidence and not the equivalent of direct vouching; defendant waived claim by failing to object
Whether district court erred by sua sponte questioning a key defense witness, warranting a new trial	State: judge’s brief clarifying questions only cleared up confusion about family relationships and elicited facts already in evidence	Walton: judge’s inquiry gratuitously highlighted mother’s prior sexual/parental history and undermined her credibility, which the prosecutor later exploited—denying a fair trial	Court: no abuse of discretion; questions elicited information already in record, did not constitute express or implied comment, and did not justify a new trial

State v. Stafford, 208 Mont. 324, 678 P.2d 644 (1984) (trial judge must preside impartially; due process requires impartial judge)
State v. Richardson, 69 Mont. 400, 222 P. 418 (1924) (trial judge should avoid officious interference)
State v. White, 151 Mont. 151, 440 P.2d 269 (1968) (prosecutors should avoid derogatory language and epithets at trial)
State v. Rodgers, 257 Mont. 413, 849 P.2d 1028 (1993) (criticizing prosecutorial comments that directly accuse witnesses of lying to the jury)
State v. Arlington, 265 Mont. 127, 875 P.2d 307 (1994) (addressing prosecutorial comments asserting a defendant had lied repeatedly)