State v. French, 431 P.3d 332

On March 8, 2016, Trooper Zachary Rehbein stopped and cited Mark French for driving 80 mph in a 65 mph night zone; Rehbein was the only witness at trial and testified radar read 80 mph and he performed a post-stop self-test; radar produced no printout.
French represented himself at Justice Court (convicted) and at a de novo trial in District Court (also convicted by jury); he appealed raising multiple pretrial motions and objections.
French moved to dismiss for lack of particularized suspicion and for lack of corroborating evidence, argued the Constitution (and Bible) requires two or more witnesses, and sought to present that theory to the jury.
District Court denied dismissal, excluded evidence and argument about a two-witness rule (and barred Biblical argument), and refused a proposed instruction; it allowed the case to go to the jury on Trooper Rehbein’s testimony alone.
During closing, defense referenced prior proceedings; prosecutor replied that French had already been convicted in Justice Court — the State conceded this was prejudicial and the Court of Appeals found plain error requiring a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (French)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Motion to dismiss for lack of particularized suspicion and lack of corroboration	Stop lacked particularized suspicion because it relied solely on uncorroborated trooper testimony; conviction requires corroborating objective data	Officer observed speeding and radar confirmed speed; one credible witness is sufficient for proof	Denied: particularized suspicion existed; corroboration beyond a credible witness not required
2. Prosecutor's comment that defendant was previously convicted in Justice Court	Comment was prejudicial and deprived French of fair trial	State conceded comment introduced prejudicial facts and invited plain error review	Reversed and remanded for new trial due to prosecutor’s improper remark
3. Exclusion of statute (oath) as exhibit	Statute would impeach trooper’s credibility by showing his oath differs from his testimony	Exhibit irrelevant to facts of speeding; court has discretion on relevance	No abuse of discretion in excluding exhibit
4. Request to instruct jury that multiple witnesses required; Bible citation in closing	Sixth Amendment and historical/Biblical authority require two or more witnesses to convict	Modern law permits conviction on single credible witness; Biblical arguments are inappropriate in jury argument	Denied: court properly instructed that one credible witness suffices; barring Bible citation not an abuse

State v. Bowen, 380 Mont. 433 (single witness testimony can suffice for proof of any fact)
City of Missoula v. Sharp, 381 Mont. 225 (particularized suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
State v. Stringer, 271 Mont. 367 (prosecutor may not comment on defendant’s guilt; such comments invade jury province)
State v. Lacey, 364 Mont. 291 (inappropriate to invoke God/Bible in closing argument to influence jury)