State v. Nuessle
2016 MT 335
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Police executed a warrant-based search at Sharon Dexter’s home looking for Shelley Nelson, who had stolen a pickup; officers encountered Jerald Nuessle in a bedroom.
- An officer outside the back door observed Nuessle look out, see officers, and retreat; no one exited the house.
- Officers found Nelson hiding under the headboard of the bed where Nuessle had been sitting; Nelson later testified Nuessle helped hide her and told officers she had fled.
- Nuessle was charged with felony obstructing justice under § 45-7-303(2)(a), which criminalizes purposely harboring or concealing an offender when the defendant knows the person is an offender.
- Jury was instructed on elements including that Nuessle knew Nelson was an offender and that he acted purposely; instructions defined "purposely" but did not define "knowing" or "knew."
- Nuessle failed to object at trial or propose a definition; he was convicted and appealed, raising plain-error and ineffective-assistance claims regarding the absence of a definition of "knowing."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absence of a jury definition of "knowing" is plain error | State: No plain error; jury was instructed on all elements and jurors could understand "knowing" | Nuessle: Failure relieved the State of proving the mental-state element and violated due process | No plain-error review; failure to review would not produce miscarriage of justice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a definition of "knowing" | State: Counsel acted reasonably; term is commonly understood and parties emphasized it at trial | Nuessle: Counsel’s omission was deficient and prejudicial because it lowered burden of proof | Counsel was not ineffective; omission was reasonable and not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 380 Mont. 445 (Mont. 2015) (plain-error review standard for unpreserved jury-instruction issues)
- Crisp v. State, 249 Mont. 199 (Mont. 1991) (no need to instruct on words of common understanding)
- Gould v. State, 216 Mont. 455 (Mont. 1984) (same principle regarding common language in jury instructions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90 (Mont. 2008) (applying Strickland standard in Montana)