State v. Edwards, 2011 MT 210

Edwards was charged with deliberate homicide of Daniel Lavigne; amended information added one count of tampering with physical evidence.
Edwards moved in limine (Nov 2, 2009) to exclude his wife Sherry Edwards’ testimony about observations and threats, based on spousal privilege.
District Court applied the 2001 version of § 26-1-802, MCA, but this Court later held the 2009 version applied; ruling on motion remained that the testimony could be admitted.
District Court denied the motion on Jan 13, 2010; Sherry testified at trial and Edwards’ counsel attacked her credibility during cross- and direct examination.
On Mar 26, 2010 the jury convicted Edwards of deliberate homicide and tampering with physical evidence; sentencing occurred Apr 22, 2010 with a 100-year term and 50-year parole restriction.
Edwards filed a pro se post-trial motion for new counsel and new trial (Apr 22, 2010); court forwarded it but took no further action; appellate review followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying the in limine to exclude his wife’s testimony	Edwards contends spousal privilege bars testimony	Edwards argues privilege governs whether wife testifies and should bar	No error; district court properly admitted testimony under 2009 privilege version
Whether Edwards received ineffective assistance of counsel	Defense counsel was unprepared, harming defense	No prejudice; cross-examination damaged witness credibility, not counsel’s preparation	No reversible IAC; no reasonable probability of different outcome
Whether the district court erred by failing to inquire into Edwards' motion for new counsel	Court should have conducted a meaningful inquiry into a possible conflict	No need for substitution absent a complete collapse of relationship	Remand not required; error acknowledged but not outcome-determinative

State v. Nettleton, 233 Mont. 308, 760 P.2d 733 (Mont. 1988) (spousal privilege requires confidential communications from marriage)
In re Sechrest, 549 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2008) (prejudice requires other counsel’s preparation impact on trial)
State v. Happel, 357 Mont. 390, 240 P.3d 1016 (2010 MT 200) (inquiry into conflicts of counsel when request for new counsel made)
State v. Wilson, 296 Mont. 465, 989 P.2d 813 (1999 MT 271) (failure to inquire into substitution request is error)
State v. Dethman, 358 Mont. 384, 245 P.3d 30 (2010 MT 268) (burden on defendant to show magnitude of conflict with counsel)
Robinson v. State, 356 Mont. 282, 232 P.3d 403 (2010 MT 108) (new counsel warranted only for complete collapse of attorney-client relationship)
State v. Roberts, 194 Mont. 189, 633 P.2d 1214 (Mont. 1981) (spousal privilege exists under separate statutes)
Nettleton (duplicate entry for emphasis), 233 Mont. 308, 760 P.2d 733 (Mont. 1988) (spousal privilege applies to confidential communications)