State v. Pierce, 2016 MT 308

Victim M.R., ages 9–11 at the time, later disclosed multiple incidents of sexual abuse by her step-grandfather Robert Pierce; disclosures were made to her mother in 2012 and led to a criminal investigation and jury trial.
Initial local officer Sather prepared a report (the "Sather Report") that was not included in the county Swift digital file or the physical file copied by the DCI; it was discovered by a DCI agent on April 16, 2013, days before trial.
The Sather Report was promptly produced to defense counsel upon discovery; most of its substance had already been disclosed earlier except for comments by a local official (Becky Guay) expressing sympathy/opinion about Pierce.
Pierce moved for discovery sanctions and a continuance to investigate newly disclosed material; the district court denied the requested continuance/sanctions after an evidentiary hearing.
During opening statement the State discussed the family’s desire to keep the matter in the family and the difficulty M.R. faced; Pierce later moved for mistrial claiming the State improperly punished him for exercising his right to a trial and sought sympathy for the victim. The court denied the mistrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance/sanctions for late disclosure of Sather Report was an abuse of discretion	State: disclosure was immediate upon discovery and omissions were not willful; only non‑duplicative material was an official's opinion, not new evidence	Pierce: late disclosure prejudiced defense and warranted continuance to investigate witnesses named in the report	Court: No abuse — disclosure was not willful, prejudice not shown, only opinion remarks were new
Whether denial of mistrial for prosecutor's opening statement was an abuse of discretion	State: opening fairly summarized evidence that family hoped to keep matter private and sought help for Pierce; no comment on right to trial	Pierce: opening implied punishment for exercising right to jury trial and solicited sympathy for victim	Court: No abuse — statements were supported by testimony and not improper under Lindberg

State v. Golder, 301 Mont. 368 (2000) (courts have discretion in imposing discovery sanctions)
State v. Waters, 228 Mont. 490 (1987) (factors for discovery sanction decisions: reason for nondisclosure, willfulness, prejudice)
State v. Lindberg, 347 Mont. 76 (2008) (two‑step test for prosecutorial comment: impropriety then prejudice)
State v. Toulouse, 327 Mont. 467 (2005) (continuance decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Moree, 357 Mont. 24 (2010) (mistrial rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Klemann, 194 Mont. 117 (1981) (appellate reversal requires showing of prejudice)