State v. S. Calahan, 538 P.3d 1129

Sean McKalvey Calahan was charged with two counts of felony sexual assault after his two stepdaughters (ages 11 and 14) reported abuse in October 2019.
Defense sought deposition and counseling records from the children’s therapist, Kristina Dukart, LCSW; the court conducted an in camera review and denied production.
During voir dire, juror M.C. expressed sympathy for victims and said confronting stigma gave credibility to reports; defense moved to dismiss M.C. for cause and was denied.
At trial the children and another witness largely recanted earlier statements, but the jury convicted Calahan.
At sentencing the court pronounced an oral sentence; the written judgment later included several standard conditions that did not match the oral pronouncement.

Issue	State's Argument	Calahan's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused discretion by denying discovery of victims’ counseling records after in camera review	Victims’ counseling privilege and privacy outweigh defense need; in camera review protects interests	Guardian waived privilege; records and deposition needed for exculpatory evidence	Denial affirmed — in camera review found no exculpatory material requiring production
Whether the court abused discretion by refusing to dismiss juror M.C. for cause	M.C. affirmed he would follow the judge’s instructions and be impartial; rehabilitation sufficient	M.C.’s statements showed bias favoring victims and required dismissal	Denial affirmed — M.C. unequivocally said he would follow the law and could be impartial
Whether the written judgment must conform to oral sentencing	Written judgment must match orally pronounced sentence	Written judgment contained conditions not pronounced orally	Remanded in part: excise nonconforming conditions (18,22,23,26,27,29); include statutory marijuana conditions (15,16) tied to Condition 9

State v. Duffy, 300 Mont. 381, 6 P.3d 453 (in camera review is appropriate to balance defendant’s need against victim confidentiality)
State v. Stutzman, 388 Mont. 133, 398 P.3d 265 (defendant’s right to exculpatory evidence vs. victim privacy)
State v. Donnelly, 244 Mont. 371, 798 P.2d 89 (supporting in camera review of privileged material)
Commonwealth v. Stockhammer, 570 N.E.2d 992 (Mass. 1991) (contrasting approach allowing defense counsel to review privileged records)
State v. Johnson, 373 Mont. 330, 317 P.3d 164 (juror disqualification for fixed opinions)
State v. Russell, 390 Mont. 253, 411 P.3d 1260 (structural error when legitimate for-cause juror challenge is denied)
State v. Heath, 320 Mont. 211, 89 P.3d 947 (juror with relevant experience may remain if she unequivocally can be impartial)
State v. Allen, 357 Mont. 495, 241 P.3d 1045 (juror should be removed if unequivocally partial to prosecution)
State v. Lane, 288 Mont. 286, 957 P.2d 9 (oral pronouncement of sentence controls the written judgment)