State v. Kebble, 353 P.3d 1175

Kebble, a licensed Montana outfitter, pleaded guilty to drug possession in 2004; his license was later suspended after a failed drug test and related administrative actions. A 2009 Carbon County order ultimately set aside the 2004 revocation and dismissed the drug charge.
FWP wardens observed Kebble guiding fishing trips in Cascade County in 2005–2006; DOJ DCI investigator Jimmy Weg examined Kebble’s computer and produced emails used at trial.
At Kebble’s 2010 Cascade County justice court trial on 38 counts of outfitting without a license, prospective juror Philip Matteson (a DOJ DCI criminal investigator who knew Weg and other State witnesses) remained on the jury after the court denied Kebble’s challenge for cause; Kebble used peremptory challenges and exhausted them.
The justice court granted the State’s motion in limine excluding evidence about the Carbon County drug proceedings and license-suspension circumstances; the jury convicted Kebble on all counts and he was sentenced under the statute in effect at the time of the offenses.
Cascade County District Court affirmed; the Montana Supreme Court granted review, reversed on the juror issue, and remanded for a new trial while providing guidance on the evidentiary and sentencing issues.

Issue	Kebble’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether court abused discretion by denying challenge for cause to juror employed by DOJ DCI	Matteson’s employment with DOJ DCI (same division as key State investigator Weg) required excusal under §46-16-115(2)(b) and created bias	Challenge for cause waived/insufficient showing of bias; employment alone does not require removal	Reversed: juror should have been excused under §46-16-115(2)(b); remand for new trial
Whether excluding evidence about Carbon County proceedings (license suspension context) was error	Evidence showing suspension circumstances and later reinstatement was transactional and necessary context under §26-1-103	Drug conviction/suspension irrelevant, remote, and unduly prejudicial under Rules 401/403	Affirmed: exclusion proper — suspension circumstances were remote and not part of the transaction at issue
Whether sentence should follow statute in effect at sentencing (2007) rather than at offense (2005)	2007 statute reduced penalties for outfitting without a license; Kebble entitled to ameliorative change per State v. Wilson	2007 did not reduce penalty for this offense but moved penalties to a different section; no amelioration	Affirmed: sentencing under 2005 statute was proper because 2007 did not lessen punishment

State v. Thomson, 169 Mont. 158 (Court rejected removal of law-enforcement juror where voir dire did not show bias)
State v. Radi, 176 Mont. 451 (employment by county/state official alone insufficient to disqualify juror)
State v. Williams, 262 Mont. 530 (prospective juror removable under multiple statutory subsections when bias is shown)
State v. Wilson, 279 Mont. 34 (defendant may receive benefit of ameliorative sentencing statute enacted after offense when it lessens punishment)
State v. Beavers, 296 Mont. 340 (transaction rule contemporaneity requirement for admitting related evidence)
State v. Lamarr, 376 Mont. 232 (standard for appellate review of justice-court-origin cases)