467 P.3d 550
Mont.2020Background
- On Sept. 18, 2016 Nevada B. St. Marks stabbed Cordell Wilson multiple times in the chest; Wilson survived after surgery for a collapsed lung and major blood loss.
- St. Marks admitted stabbing Wilson but claimed self‑defense; witnesses (Wilson, Welch, J.G.) gave differing accounts and a recorded police interview showed St. Marks changed his story.
- At trial the court gave Instruction #10 based on §45‑2‑201(2) MCA (a ‘‘specific purpose’’/alternative‑result instruction) though the charge was attempted deliberate homicide (an inchoate, result‑based crime); defense did not object.
- During trial the prosecutor questioned a detective about the defendant’s credibility and made a brief closing remark that a witness "told the truth;" defense did not object to those exchanges.
- The jury asked for clarification on Instruction #10 during deliberations; the defense declined clarification; the jury convicted St. Marks of attempted deliberate homicide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Instruction #10 (a §45‑2‑201(2) alternative‑result instruction) merits plain‑error review | State: no plain error; instruction didn't affect fairness or outcome | St. Marks: instruction was legally inapplicable to attempt and trial counsel ineffective for not objecting | Court: instruction was inappropriate but not plain error; no IAC prejudice given self‑defense trial focus; conviction affirmed |
| Whether prosecutor's limited credibility questioning and brief closing comment warrant plain‑error reversal | State: prosecutor conduct not improper or not plain error | St. Marks: questioning the detective and saying a witness "told the truth" was improper and warrants review | Court: conduct was limited, distinguishable from Hayden, not plain error; cumulative error not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test)
- State v. Ilk, 422 P.3d 1219 (harmlessness where defendant conceded purposeful conduct via self‑defense claim)
- State v. Nick, 208 P.3d 864 (same principle: relying on justifiable use of force concedes purposeful/knowing act)
- State v. Hayden, 190 P.3d 1091 (prosecutorial credibility attacks can necessitate plain‑error review)
- State v. Favel, 362 P.3d 1126 (plain‑error review standard and preservation principles)