State v. E. Mitchell, 2017 MT 215

On November 19, 2014, a family fight at a shared residence escalated: Edward Mitchell (defendant) and others struggled; Mitchell armed himself with knives and injured Heather Conway (cut finger) and Tanner Conway (stabbed in chest); Mitchell also bit Tanner and was hit with a baseball bat.
Mitchell was charged with two counts (assault with a weapon and aggravated assault) relating to Tanner and one count (assault with a weapon) relating to Heather.
At trial Mitchell asserted justifiable use of force; jury acquitted on the Tanner counts but convicted him of assault with a weapon on Heather.
Defense counsel did not request a jury instruction treating Heather as an ‘‘innocent bystander’’ or instructing transfer of the justifiable-use-of-force defense to a bystander. The prosecution requested, but the court did not give, a broader transfer-of-intent instruction (Instruction #30).
Mitchell appealed arguing ineffective assistance for not requesting a bystander-justification instruction and that the sentencing order improperly imposed parole conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a bystander justifiable-use-of-force instruction	State: Record doesn’t show deficiency; issue better raised in postconviction if at all	Mitchell: Counsel should have requested instruction transferring his self‑defense justification to Heather as an injured bystander; omission prejudiced him under Strickland	Court: No ineffectiveness — jury was instructed on separate counts and on justifiable force; state did not present the bystander/transferred‑person theory to the jury, so counsel was not deficient
Whether the sentencing order imposed illegal parole conditions	State: The phrasing qualified the conditions as probation conditions during any community supervision	Mitchell: Language “for any period of community supervision” effectively imposed parole conditions beyond statutory authority	Court: No illegality — the order plainly imposed conditions of probation that apply during any period of community supervision for the suspended term

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Whitlow, 183 P.3d 861 (Mont. 2008) (standard for reviewing ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. Williams, 358 P.3d 127 (Mont. 2015) (discusses Strickland prongs and burden)
State v. Schmidt, 224 P.3d 618 (Mont. 2009) (law‑of‑the‑case principles regarding jury instructions)