State v. R. Bullock, 2017 MT 182

In July 2013 Bullock, intoxicated, entered a garage where an 8‑year‑old girl (A.W.) was sleeping in a car; she was found injured, partially unclothed, and later medical exam and partial DNA from Bullock’s penis supported sexual contact and injury to the hymen.
Bullock made post‑arrest statements admitting he touched A.W.’s vagina and removed her clothing but denied penetration; he reiterated similar statements to detectives on two occasions.
Charged with sexual intercourse without consent and burglary, Bullock was arrested July 19, 2013 and tried February 10, 2015 after multiple continuances and counsel changes. He moved to dismiss for violation of his speedy‑trial right; the district court denied relief.
At trial detectives used transcripts of Bullock’s recorded statements to refresh recollection and read portions aloud; the court admitted the statements as party admissions.
Bullock did not object to the burglary jury instruction (which did not define theft elements) at trial; he raised multiple errors on appeal.
The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the convictions but held the court technology user surcharge was improperly imposed per count and remanded to impose a single $10 surcharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bullock)	Held
1. Speedy‑trial violation	Delay was largely institutional or defendant‑caused; no prejudice to defense	571‑day delay violated constitutional speedy‑trial right and prejudiced Bullock	No violation; delay attributable to mix of institutional reasons and defendant continuances; no showing of prejudice impairing defense
2. Use of transcripts to refresh witnesses	Transcripts accurately reflect recorded statements and constitute party admissions (not hearsay); officers properly refreshed recollection	Reading transcripts aloud was improper under M. R. Evid. 612 and introduced inadmissible hearsay	Admission not reversible error: statements admissible as party admissions; any error in reading aloud was harmless
3. Burglary instruction omitted theft elements	Jury could infer intent to commit theft from evidence and defendant’s statements	Omission of theft elements warrants reversal under plain error review	Issue forfeited; plain‑error review denied because omission did not produce manifest miscarriage of justice
4. Multiple user surcharges	Surcharge proper as assessed by district court	Statute authorizes $10 user surcharge per user, not per conviction	State concedes and court holds surcharge must be imposed once per user; remand to strike extra surcharges

State v. Ariegwe, 338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815 (2007) (framework and four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing)
State v. Derbyshire, 349 Mont. 114, 201 P.3d 811 (2009) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and interpretation of evidentiary rules)
State v. Taylor, 356 Mont. 167, 231 P.3d 79 (2010) (preservation rule and plain error review standard)
State v. Pope, 386 Mont. 194, 387 P.3d 870 (2017) (court technology user surcharge authorized per user, not per conviction)