State v. M. Reopelle, 2017 Mont. LEXIS 492

In January 2015 Reopelle deposited six checks drawn on a closed Academy Bank account into a newly opened Missoula Federal Credit Union (MFCU) account; the checks were later dishonored and she withdrew $17,800 before the bank discovered the problem.
Reopelle moved substantial funds into a Wells Fargo account in the name of “Shawn Garvin,” a man she knew only online; police investigating the dishonored checks executed a search warrant and recovered electronic evidence linking her to that contact.
The State sought to admit evidence of four prior investigations (2008–2012) involving similar online check/money-order schemes and two recent misdemeanor convictions for deceptive practices (Nov. 2014 pleas, sentenced Jan. 16, 2015).
Before trial the court allowed the prior-investigation and misdemeanor-conviction evidence under M. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403 as probative of intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake; it also permitted Detective Lear to testify as a general expert on internet financial scams but not about Reopelle’s state of mind.
Reopelle was convicted by a jury of felony deceptive practices; she appealed arguing (1) improper admission of prior bad-acts evidence, (2) late disclosure/impermissible expert testimony, and (3) erroneous refusal to give a misdemeanor theft lesser-included instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Reopelle)	Held
Admissibility of prior investigations/convictions as 404(b) evidence	Prior acts show pattern, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake	Prior acts do not prove knowledge; too speculative; improper propensity inference	Admitted: prior acts highly probative of intent/knowledge; no propensity inference required; no abuse of discretion
Late disclosure of expert witness (Detective Lear)	Lear’s expert testimony merely described common internet frauds; defense had notice Lear would testify and knew her involvement	Late disclosure prevented meaningful rebuttal expert; prejudiced defense	Overruled: no abuse of discretion—defense knew Lear, no showing of prejudice or need for continuance
Denial of misdemeanor theft lesser-included instruction	N/A for State (alternatively argued)	Reopelle: only <$1,500 kept personally; remainder remitted to third party so felony threshold not met	Denied: undisputed value MFCU was deprived of exceeded $1,500 (total withdrawals $17,800); no support for misdemeanor instruction
Rule 403 balancing (unfair prejudice)	Probative value outweighs minimal risk of propensity prejudice	Prior convictions/investigations unfairly prejudicial	Court applied Rule 403 and found minimal unfair prejudice given high probative value; no abuse of discretion

State v. Madplume, 386 Mont. 368 (2017) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 358 Mont. 325 (2010) (limits on impermissible propensity in 404(b) analysis)
State v. Stewart, 367 Mont. 503 (2012) (Rule 403 "unfair prejudice" context and mens rea framework)
State v. Daffin, 387 Mont. 154 (2017) (404(b) admissibility requires logical chain of inferences without propensity inference)
State v. Russell, 385 Mont. 208 (2016) (standards for lesser-included offense instructions)