State v. Main, 255 P.3d 1240

Kvelstad died in Havre, MT, after severe blunt-force injuries and a ligature around his neck; scene showed extensive blood and trauma.
Main, Norquay, Red Elk, Skidmore, Snow, Oats, Georgetta, and Ivy Snow were at Snow's residence when the events occurred; assault on Kvelstad escalated to choke holds.
DNA and blood evidence linked Main and Norquay to the crime; Norquay and Snow faced related charges; Snow pled guilty to tampering with physical evidence.
Main was charged with deliberate homicide under the felony-murder theory (aggravated assault as the underlying felony); a suppression hearing occurred for statements made to Waldron and Tate.
The District Court suppressed Main’s statements to Waldron but denied suppression of his statements to Tate; trial proceeded with witnesses including immunized Snow and Norquay; Main was convicted on deliberate homicide and felony murder and sentenced to 60 years; Main appeals on suppression, sufficiency of evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the suppression ruling was correct	Main contends his Miranda waiver was involuntary due to intoxication and he clearly invoked counsel.	State argues waiver was voluntary and invocation not unequivocal; Waldron’s interrogation was not custodial; Tate advised Miranda warnings.	The district court’s suppression ruling was correct; waiver voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently.
Whether there was sufficient evidence for felony murder	Main argues the State failed to prove aggravated assault as the underlying felony and causation to death.	State contends evidence shows a forcible felony with a death during the offense and causal connection; DNA and injuries support accountability.	There was substantial evidence for the underlying aggravated assault and causal link; felony-murder elements satisfied.
Whether Main received ineffective assistance of counsel	IAC claims based on trial counsel’s handling of evidence, including failure to object to Kemp’s testimony.	State argues record-based IAC claims should be reviewed on direct appeal and that counsel’s strategic choices were reasonable.	Main’s IAC claims do not warrant relief on direct appeal; record shows strategic choices and no prejudice.

State v. Gittens, 2008 MT 55, 341 Mont. 450, 178 P.3d 91 (Mont. 2008) (review of suppression findings and Miranda waiver validity)
State v. Olson, 2003 MT 61, 314 Mont. 402, 66 P.3d 297 (Mont. 2003) (clear invocation of right to counsel standard)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (pre-waiver invocation standard for right to counsel)
State v. Scheffer, 2010 MT 73, 355 Mont. 523, 230 P.3d 462 (Mont. 2010) (objective test for invoking right to counsel in custodial interrogation)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (totality of the circumstances for knowing, voluntary waiver)
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1979) (waiver requires awareness and relinquishment of rights)
State v. Blakney, 197 Mont. 131, 641 P.2d 1045 (Mont. 1982) (factors in assessing knowing, voluntary waiver; defendant’s background and intellect)
State v. Kills on Top, 241 Mont. 378, 787 P.2d 336 (Mont. 1990) (felony-murder scope and causal connection elements)
Weinberger v. State, 206 Mont. 110, 671 P.2d 567 (Mont. 1983) (causation standard in felony-murder context)
State v. Cox, 266 Mont. 110, 879 P.2d 662 (Mont. 1994) (conspiracy or accomplice liability in felony-murder context admissibility)
Buck v. State, 2006 MT 81, 331 Mont. 517, 134 P.3d 53 (Mont. 2006) (broad invocation analysis for counsel requests)
State v. Reavley, 2003 MT 298, 318 Mont. 150, 79 P.3d 270 (Mont. 2003) (treatment of ambiguous statements as requests for counsel)