437 P.3d 147
Mont.2019Background
- Johnson was charged with felony partner or family member assault (PFMA) for an alleged May 29, 2014 assault; whether the alleged victim was a legally-defined "partner" was an essential element.
- During voir dire defense counsel probed whether jurors would require the State to prove every element, including the partner relationship; three answered generally they would.
- Prospective Juror S. twice spontaneously said she would have a "hard time" acquitting if the defendant beat the victim even if the State could not prove a partner relationship, stating she would punish him regardless.
- The prosecutor later asked leading questions whether Juror S. would follow the judge’s instructions; she answered "yes."
- The district court denied the defense challenge for cause; Johnson used a peremptory to strike Juror S. and exhausted his peremptories.
- The jury convicted Johnson; the Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding the court abused its discretion in denying the for-cause challenge and that the error was structural because Johnson exhausted peremptories, requiring automatic reversal and a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a challenge for cause to Juror S. | Juror S. promised she would follow jury instructions and the judge’s order, so she could be fair. | Juror S. made multiple spontaneous statements showing she could not set aside a bias to punish regardless of the charged element (partner), so she should be excused for cause. | Reversed — court abused its discretion; error structural because defendant exhausted peremptories; new trial ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Russell, 411 P.3d 1260 (Mont. 2018) (totality of juror statements controls and ambiguity resolved in favor of disqualification)
- State v. Good, 43 P.3d 948 (Mont. 2002) (erroneous denial of a for-cause challenge followed by exhaustion of peremptories is structural error requiring reversal)
- State v. Brown, 993 P.2d 672 (Mont. 1999) (coaxed recantations to leading questions are unreliable and do not cure demonstrated bias)