State v. Madplume, 2017 MT 40

Background

On May 25, 2013 Laurence Kenmille drowned at Wild Horse Hot Springs after being in Room Four with defendant Melvin Lee Madplume Jr.; autopsy showed blunt force injuries, findings consistent with violent drowning, and rectal injuries consistent with anal penetration.
About a week earlier Madplume had a similar uncharged incident in the same Room Four with another cousin (J.B.) in which Madplume allegedly isolated, intoxicated, and touched J.B.; J.B. escaped and later described the event.
The State charged Madplume with deliberate homicide under the felony-murder rule, with nonconsensual sexual intercourse as the predicate felony; it sought to admit the J.B. incident under M. R. Evid. 404(b).
The District Court admitted the J.B. evidence as proof of plan/motive/intent (modus operandi) and also referenced Rule 406; the jury convicted and the court sentenced Madplume to life without parole and ordered payment of costs for assigned counsel, prosecution, and jury selection.
On appeal Madplume challenged (1) admission of the prior-acts evidence under M. R. Evid. 404(b) and Rule 403 and (2) imposition of costs without an adequate inquiry into his ability to pay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior-act evidence under M. R. Evid. 404(b) (modus operandi, plan, motive, intent)	State: J.B. incident is sufficiently similar and near in time to prove common plan, motive, and intent to facilitate sex with an intoxicated, isolated victim	Madplume: Admission was impermissible propensity evidence and meant to portray him as a "homosexual predator"; similarity and temporal proximity alone insufficient	Court affirmed: 404(b) admissible—similarities (same room, alcohol, younger companion, isolation, sexual contact while companion out) fit a non-propensity chain of inferences proving plan/motive/intent
Admission under Rule 403 (unfair prejudice)	State: Probative value high; limiting instructions mitigate prejudice	Madplume: Evidence risks unfair prejudice by arousing bias against sexual orientation and confusing jury	Court affirmed: Probative value outweighed risk; three limiting instructions given; evidence necessary to prove predicate sex offense
Alternative Rule 406 (habit)	State: evidence showed routine behavior/habit supporting admission	Madplume: Habit not established; alternative theory improper	Court declined to decide: unnecessary because 404(b) admission was proper
Imposition of costs without inquiry into ability to pay	State: District Court relied on defendant’s prison work history and speculative tribal payments mentioned in an earlier interview	Madplume: No adequate inquiry or record of ability to pay; imposition violates statutes requiring determination	Court reversed costs: record lacked particularized, non-speculative findings or direct questioning; remanded for proper ability-to-pay inquiry

Key Cases Cited

State v. Spottedbear, 380 P.3d 810 (Mont. 2016) (standard of review and trial court discretion on admissibility)
State v. Dist. Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Dist. (Salvagni), 246 P.3d 415 (Mont. 2010) (limits on 404(b) and modus operandi analysis)
State v. Aakre, 46 P.3d 64 (Mont. 2002) (purpose of Rule 404 and need to prevent propensity inferences)
State v. Clifford, 121 P.3d 489 (Mont. 2005) (chain of logical inferences required for 404(b) admissibility)
State v. Franks, 335 P.3d 725 (Mont. 2014) (prosecutorial use of other-acts evidence that impermissibly suggests propensity)
State v. Ford, 926 P.2d 245 (Mont. 1996) (recognition of potential juror prejudice about sexual orientation)
State v. Moore, 277 P.3d 1212 (Mont. 2012) (requirement of inquiry before imposing jury-costs and costs of counsel)
State v. Gable, 354 P.3d 566 (Mont. 2015) (appellate review of sentencing legality and implied findings doctrine)
State v. Kordonowy, 823 P.2d 854 (Mont. 1991) (modus operandi identity usage)