State v. Redlich, 321 P.3d 82

Redlich was convicted by jury of Count I (assault with a weapon), Count II (assault with a weapon—gun), and Count IV (disorderly conduct); he received concurrent ten-year sentences for the felonies and a short jail term for the misdemeanor.
Evidence at trial centered on competing accounts of the night outside a Dillon bar, including Redlich twirling a pool cue and allegedly swinging it toward football players, versus witnesses who said he did not swing or threaten as described.
There was a dispute over whether a gun was present; some witnesses claimed Redlich pointed a revolver-type pistol, while Redlich and others denied a gun was involved.
Reed confronted the football players with a baseball bat; Peniston disarmed Redlich, and there were conflicting account of whether Peniston kicked Redlich.
Redlich argued that the jury must specify victims for Counts I and II, that the use-of-force defense should be available for Count I as well, and that rebuttal evidence was improper; he also moved to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial.
The case proceeded to trial after continuances; Redlich was arrested May 29, 2011 and trial occurred September 25, 2012; the State alleged multiple assault-with-a-weapon theories and one disorderly conduct theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for felony assault with a weapon	Redlich argues the victims for Counts I and II lack a solid basis.	Redlich contends no rational basis exists to find him liable for assault against the named victims.	Evidence supports Counts I and II for alternative victims; sufficiency affirmed.
Limitations on justifiable use of force instruction	State argues instruction limited defense improperly to Count II.	Redlich contends broader instruction was warranted and prejudice occurred.	Court did not abuse discretion; instruction limitation was not prejudicial.
Admission of rebuttal evidence to impeach defense witness	Rebuttal testimony impeached Reed’s credibility regarding Scott’s account.	Creditability impeachment of a defense witness was improper and prejudicial.	District Court did not abuse discretion; rebuttal evidence was admissible and probative.
Speedy trial violation	Delay prejudiced the State’s case by extending pretrial timelines.	Delay violated Redlich’s Sixth Amendment rights.	No reversible speedy-trial error; four-factor analysis supports denial of dismissal.

State v. Trujillo, 180 P.3d 1153 (Mont. 2008) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in overturning conviction)
State v. Swann, 337 Mont. 326, 160 P.3d 511 (Mont. 2007) (instructional and evidentiary review standards in criminal appeals)
State v. Crawford, 48 P.3d 706 (Mont. 2002) (jury instructions must be fully and fairly explained to jury)
State v. Vernes, 130 P.3d 169 (Mont. 2006) (unanimity and victim identification in jury verdicts)
State v. Archambault, 152 P.3d 698 (Mont. 2007) (comprehensive jury instruction review standard)