State v. Hatfield, 426 P.3d 569

Background

Victim Matt Hatfield disappeared in November 2008; partial skull found in 2010 and identified in 2013. His son, Adam Hatfield, was charged with deliberate homicide and tried twice; the first trial resulted in a mistrial and the second (Feb 2016) produced a guilty verdict and life sentence.
Investigators found blood spatter and a partial shoeprint at Matt's cabin; police examined Matt's damaged pickup truck; experts Jenner (footwear) and Holland (blood spatter) testified for the State.
Before retrial, the State announced it would call and later recall two law‑enforcement witnesses to present a chronological narrative; the court allowed this over Adam’s objection under M. R. Evid. 611(d).
The district judge announced a practice of not permitting extended spoken objections at sidebar and that most sidebars/in‑chambers conferences would be unrecorded; numerous conferences occurred off the record and the transcript is silent as to Adam’s presence for many of them.
On appeal Adam argued (inter alia) violations of his right to be present, failure to make a record of critical stages, denial of a public trial, improper witness recalls, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed conviction.

Issues

Issue	Hatfield's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Right to be present at conferences (23 claimed exclusions)	Absence from sidebars/in‑chambers violated his Sixth/Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment and Montana constitutional rights; error was structural or warrants plain‑error review	Record does not show all absences; any presence error was not structural and appellant did not prove prejudice for plain‑error review	Court found absence established in 8 instances but concluded error was not structural and appellant failed to meet plain‑error burden; no relief granted
Failure to make a record of critical stages	District Court’s practice of unrecorded conferences denied appellant due process and foreclosed appellate review	Parties were informed sidebars were unrecorded and bore the burden to make a record; counsel waived a verbatim record by not preserving objections	Court held no error: counsel had notice and opportunity to preserve the record; Counts/Prawitt reasoning supports waiver outcome
Right to public trial / public's right to know	Off‑record and private conferences denied appellant and public their constitutional rights	Many conferences were administrative; appellant did not waive right but failed to show plain‑error prejudice; public‑right violation alone not a basis to reverse conviction	Court declined plain‑error review on public‑trial claim and declined to reverse based on public’s right to know
Recall of law‑enforcement witnesses on direct	Multiple direct examinations gave witnesses an undue narrator role and prejudiced cross‑examination	Recall permitted by court discretion under M. R. Evid. 611(d); testimony addressed different subject matter each time and was chronological	Court found no abuse of discretion in allowing recalls (followed U.S. v. Puckett approach)
Ineffective assistance of counsel (record‑based claims)	Counsel ineffective for not ensuring presence, preserving record, and failing to object to experts	Claims are not record‑based and thus not reviewable on direct appeal	Court held claims are not record‑based; remanded neither but directed that appellant may pursue postconviction relief where appropriate
Cumulative error	The aggregate of claimed errors deprived Hatfield of a fair trial	No errors shown or, if present, not prejudicial; cumulative‑error doctrine inapplicable	Court rejected cumulative‑error claim and affirmed conviction

Key Cases Cited

State v. Taylor, 356 Mont. 167, 231 P.3d 79 (Mont. 2010) (general rule against addressing issues raised first on appeal)
State v. Blake, 384 Mont. 407, 377 P.3d 1213 (Mont. 2016) (presence as a critical stage; harmless‑error framework for presence violations)
State v. Charlie, 357 Mont. 355, 239 P.3d 934 (Mont. 2010) (presence violations may be non‑structural; harmless‑error analysis)
State v. Tapson, 307 Mont. 428, 41 P.3d 305 (Mont. 2001) (judge entering jury room during deliberations without defendant or a record; lack of record may preclude harmless‑error analysis)
State v. Reim, 374 Mont. 487, 323 P.3d 880 (Mont. 2014) (plain‑error review for unpreserved right‑of‑presence claims; need to show prejudice to trigger review)
U.S. v. Puckett, 147 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 1998) (upholding recall of law‑enforcement witnesses where each recall addressed different subject matter and did not merely bolster credibility)
State v. Van Kirk, 306 Mont. 215, 32 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2001) (harmless error burden on State to show no reasonable possibility of prejudice from presence violation)
Mumford v. (unnamed), 69 Mont. 424, 222 P. 447 (Mont. 1924) (discretion to allow or deny recall; relevance governs recall decisions)