State v. M. Stutzman, 2017 MT 110

Defendant Michael Stutzman lived with girlfriend Angela and her twin daughters R.W. and K.W.; both girls disclosed inappropriate touching by Stutzman in May 2013.
R.W. testified to two incidents: touching while on his lap and digital rubbing while asleep in a backyard tent; K.W. testified to digital penetration while sleeping.
Police charged Stutzman with sexual assault (R.W.) and sexual intercourse without consent (K.W.). Jury acquitted on the K.W. count and convicted on the R.W. sexual assault count.
Before trial the court reviewed sealed medical (Billings Clinic) and counseling (Altacare) records in camera and declined to disclose them to defense counsel.
Defense theory: the girls fabricated allegations to get Stutzman out of the house; at trial defense argued motive to lie and questioned the girls’ understanding of consequences. Prosecutor rebutted by saying a not guilty verdict would mean the jurors believed the girls were lying.
Post-trial motions denied; Stutzman appealed, raising (1) prosecutor’s closing remark, (2) absence of a specific unanimity instruction for two acts alleged by R.W., and (3) nondisclosure of certain in camera records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stutzman)	Held
1. Prosecutor’s rebuttal comment that "not guilty" means jurors think victims lied	Comment responded to defense theory and was proper rebuttal to challenge on credibility	Comment diluted presumption of innocence and shifted burden; entitled defendant to new trial	No reversible error; even if improper, isolated remark not prejudicial in context; motion for new trial denied
2. Jury unanimity instruction for two alleged acts by R.W.	Parties tried the case based on the tent incident; no risk jurors convicted on different acts	Failure to instruct that jurors must unanimously agree on a specific act created risk of non-unanimous verdict	No plain error; court did not abuse discretion given parties’ focus on the tent incident and no request by defense
3. Nondisclosure of medical and counseling records reviewed in camera	Court properly balanced victim privacy against defense need; records disclosed were not material	Some records (forensic reports, Altacare notes) were favorable/material and should have been disclosed; at least some should be reviewed on appeal	Court reviewed records and held non-disclosed items were not material to outcome; two documents should have been disclosed but their nondisclosure was harmless; conviction affirmed

State v. Morse, 378 Mont. 249 (discussing abuse of discretion standard for new-trial review) (referenced for standard of review)
State v. Lindberg, 347 Mont. 76 (addresses prosecutor-comment prejudice analysis) (used to frame prosecutorial-misconduct test)
State v. Pierce, 385 Mont. 439 (addresses evaluating prosecutorial comments) (cited on assessing impropriety vs. prejudice)
State v. Vernes, 331 Mont. 129 (explains unanimity requirement and substantial agreement) (governs unanimity instruction principles)
State v. Harris, 306 Mont. 525 (requires specific unanimity instruction when multiple acts could lead to a single-count conviction) (controls when jury must be instructed to agree on a specific act)
State v. Duffy, 300 Mont. 381 (sets out in camera review and balancing victim privacy against defendant’s need) (governs discovery of confidential victim records)
State v. Weisbarth, 384 Mont. 424 (defines "favorable" and material evidence standard for disclosure) (used to assess whether records could affect outcome)
State v. Ellenburg, 301 Mont. 289 (articulates "verdict worthy of confidence" harmless-error standard for nondisclosure) (standard for reversal based on withheld evidence)
State v. McAlister, 382 Mont. 129 (addresses significance of normal medical exam findings in sexual-assault prosecutions) (used to evaluate probative effect of forensic reports)