State v. Reichmand
243 P.3d 423
| Mont. | 2010Background
- Reichmand was convicted at a March 2008 jury trial of two counts of Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs.
- Undercover informant Chor purchased morphine tablets from Reichmand on Aug. 21 and Aug. 24, 2007, with police recording via an off-site transmitter without a warrant.
- Recordings of the transactions were admitted at trial; Reichmand did not testify.
- Reichmand moved to set aside the verdict after Goetz was announced (Aug. 20, 2008) but before sentencing.
- District Court denied the motion, citing Foster-DeBerry, which limited retroactive application of Goetz.
- Reichmand appeals asserting retroactive Goetz should reverse his conviction and that the recordings were improperly admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Goetz applies retroactively to Reichmand’s appeal. | Reichmand seeks retroactive Goetz relief. | Goetz should apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review. | Goetz retroactively applies under Egelhoff framework. |
| Whether the Goetz error was prejudicial under Van Kirk standard. | The tainted recordings prejudiced the trial. | Other evidence was overwhelming; recordings were marginal. | Goetz error was prejudicial; reversal and new trial required. |
| Whether Reichmand properly preserved the Goetz issue for appeal. | Retroactivity allows appeal notwithstanding late objection. | Post-trial objections normally waive review under plain error rules. | Objection preserved; retroactivity review proper under §46-20-701(2)(a). |
| Whether Van Kirk harmless error analysis should govern Goetz retroactivity review. | Van Kirk analysis supports reversal for prejudicial error. | Plain error/retrospective frameworks should apply. | Court applied Van Kirk to assess prejudice after retroactive Goetz; reversal appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Goetz, 191 P.3d 489 (Mont. 2008) (retrospective application of warrantless recording rule under Goetz)
- State v. Foster-DeBerry, 347 Mont. 164 (Mont. 2008) (raised Goetz issue; retroactivity limitations discussed)
- State v. Zivcic, 598 N.W.2d 565 (Wis. App. 1999) (concept of ‘similarly situated’ discussed (rejected for retroactivity))
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (retroactivity framework for new rules of procedure)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (retroactivity for new rules in direct appeal context)
- Egelhoff v. State, 900 P.2d 260 (Mont. 1995) (adopted Griffith/Teague retroactivity principles for Montana)
- State v. Van Kirk, 32 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2001) (Harmless error framework for trial errors; qualitative test)
- State v. Finley, 915 P.2d 208 (Mont. 1996) (plain error standard codified; reliance on Johnson/Olano lineage)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (plain error review; retroactivity considerations)
- Shea v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1985) (retroactivity when ruling applies to pending cases)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005) (retroactivity considerations; use of ordinary prudential doctrines)