State v. M. Stutzman, 2017 MT 169

Background

Defendant Michael Stutzman lived with girlfriend Angela and her twin daughters R.W. and K.W.; both girls reported inappropriate touching by Stutzman in May 2013.
R.W. testified to two incidents: touching while on his lap and later in a backyard tent where he allegedly put his hands in her pants; K.W. testified to digital penetration while sleeping.
Stutzman was charged with sexual assault of R.W. and sexual intercourse without consent of K.W.; jury acquitted on the K.W. charge and convicted on the R.W. sexual assault charge.
Before trial the court reviewed Billings Clinic medical records and Altacare counseling records in camera and disclosed none to defense; defendant later moved for a continuance and for disclosure.
Defense theory: the girls fabricated allegations to get Stutzman out of the house; prosecution rebutted that a not-guilty verdict would mean the jurors believed the girls were lying.
Trial court denied motion for new trial; sentenced Stutzman to 25 years with 20 years suspended. Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stutzman)	Held
Whether prosecutor’s rebuttal remark that a not guilty verdict means the victims were lying deprived defendant of fair trial	Rebuttal comment responded to defense theory and was contextualized by evidence review; not prejudicial	Remark unduly shifted burden, diluted presumption of innocence, and constituted prosecutorial misconduct warranting new trial	Affirmed: remark, viewed in context and as provoked by defense, did not demonstrate prejudice or require a new trial
Whether court committed plain error by not giving a specific unanimity instruction after R.W. testified to two separate incidents	Instruction unnecessary because parties tried the case based on the tent incident; no reasonable risk jurors convicted on different acts	Failure deprived defendant of unanimous jury verdict because jurors might have relied on different alleged acts	Affirmed: no plain error — both parties focused on the tent incident and no genuine risk of disparate jury findings
Whether court erred by not disclosing in camera medical records (Billings Clinic)	Records contained no exculpatory material affecting outcome; court properly balanced victim privacy and defendant’s need	Some records (conflicting forensic reports) and counseling notes were potentially exculpatory and should have been disclosed; non-disclosure prejudiced defense	Mixed: court abused discretion in withholding certain records (one forensic report placement and a counseling note) but nondisclosure was harmless — no reasonable probability of changed outcome
Standard of review for these claims	N/A	N/A	Review: abuse of discretion for new trial/discovery; discretionary plain-error review for unpreserved unanimity instruction

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lindberg, 347 Mont. 76 (2008) (test for whether prosecutorial comments prejudiced defendant)
State v. Martin, 305 Mont. 123 (2001) (closing-argument comments evaluated in context of entire trial)
State v. Vernes, 331 Mont. 129 (2006) (unanimity requirement: substantial agreement on principal factual elements)
State v. Harris, 306 Mont. 525 (2001) (when multiple acts charged in single count, specific unanimity instruction required if jurors might rely on different acts)
State v. Duffy, 300 Mont. 381 (2000) (district court duty to conduct in camera review and balance confidentiality against defendant’s need for exculpatory records)
State v. Weisbarth, 384 Mont. 424 (2016) (exculpatory evidence defined by potential to affect outcome or lead to admissible exculpatory evidence)
State v. Ellenburg, 301 Mont. 289 (2000) (defendant must show reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed verdict)