State v. H. Mathis, 515 P.3d 758

Background

Holly Mathis was charged with two counts of incest based on allegations by her stepson T.N.; the children N.M. and J.M. previously disclosed sexual abuse by T.N.’s father, Timothy Norling, and Norling pled guilty in that case.
Forensic interviews of N.M., J.M., and an April 2018 forensic interview of T.N. were conducted in Norling’s investigation; the State represented that T.N.’s April 2018 interview contained no disclosures of abuse by Norling or Mathis.
Mathis sought pretrial access to children witnesses; she moved under § 46-15-320, MCA, to compel pretrial interviews of T.N. and J.M.; the District Court denied the motion for lack of "exceptional circumstances."
Defense obtained J.M.’s July 2018 counseling records and T.N.’s July 2018 forensic interview (after J.M.’s disclosure); however, neither the State nor DPHHS lodged the April 2018 forensic interview of T.N. from Norling’s case for in-camera review despite court orders and subpoena efforts.
At trial T.N. and J.M. testified about multiple similar incidents in the family home; jury convicted Mathis on Count I (Dec 2016–Dec 2017) and acquitted on Count II (Dec 2017–Mar 2018); Mathis was sentenced to a term of years and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court correctly denied Mathis’s motion to interview T.N. and J.M. under § 46-15-320	Mathis: statute is unconstitutional (facial and as-applied) and denial violated right to access witnesses/complete defense	State: statute protects child victims; defendant failed to show "exceptional circumstances"; children voluntarily refused interviews	Affirmed: no constitutional violation—children declined interviews independently and prosecution did not block access; as-applied challenge fails and facial challenge need not be reached
Whether the State’s failure to lodge T.N.’s April 2018 forensic interview (from Norling’s case) violated due process/Brady	Mathis: the April 2018 interview was potentially exculpatory (T.N. made no disclosures) and could have impeached T.N., warranting a new trial	State: March 2019 order did not clearly require lodging; interview contained no disclosures and its impeachment value was minimal; defense didn’t timely object	Affirmed: interview deemed potentially favorable but nondisclosure would not have affected outcome given strong, corroborated testimony and other impeachment avenues; no new trial
Whether plain error review should be applied because court failed sua sponte to give a specific-act unanimity instruction	Mathis: absent a specific-act unanimity instruction, jurors may not have unanimously agreed on the same specific act within Count I	State: defense failed to request the instruction or object; plain error review is exceptional	Affirmed: declined plain error relief—evidence showed closely related repeated acts (continuous course of conduct exception), so omission did not compel reversal

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (defendant’s access-to-witness right balanced against witness’s right to refuse pretrial interviews)
State v. Stutzman, 398 P.3d 265 (Mont.) (two-part test for nondisclosure: favorable to defense and reasonable probability of different outcome)
State v. Weaver, 964 P.2d 713 (Mont.) (specific-act unanimity instruction required in some multiple-act sexual-assault prosecutions)
State v. Johnston, 339 P.3d 829 (Mont.) (district court duty to conduct in-camera review of confidential files when defense requests potentially exculpatory records)
State v. Little, 861 P.2d 154 (Mont.) (in-camera inspection required to complete the record when defendant requests DFS/DPHHS files)
State v. Wells, 485 P.3d 1220 (Mont.) (describing continuous-course-of-conduct exception to specific-act unanimity requirement)
State v. Harris, 36 P.3d 372 (Mont.) (applying continuous-course-of-conduct to uphold conviction without a specific-act unanimity instruction)