State v. S. Pelletier, 473 P.3d 991

Background

Pelletier was charged with sexual intercourse without consent (SIWC) for an alleged July 6, 2017 encounter; M.V. had limited memory, DNA matched Pelletier, and accounts by parties sharply conflicted.
Pelletier testified that the sex was consensual and told the jury he was “not that kind of guy” and had been “slandered.”
On cross, the State, with a limiting instruction, elicited a single acknowledgment that Pelletier had been investigated in 2003 for an unsubstantiated SIWC allegation involving him as a 15‑year‑old.
The District Court excluded defense proffered evidence that M.V. used concentrated THC the next day (to impeach her recollection) absent expert foundation; toxicology reflected a high blood‑THC level.
Pelletier had a confidential mental‑health evaluation showing schizophrenia but counsel did not assert a mental‑disease defense or challenge fitness at trial.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial: it held the 2003 cross‑examination was an abuse of discretion under Rules 404(a)(1)/403, and the blanket exclusion of M.V.’s next‑day marijuana evidence under Rule 607 was also an abuse; the ineffective‑assistance claim was non‑record‑based and moot.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Pelletier's Argument	Held
1) Whether the court erred by allowing cross‑examination about a 2003 unsubstantiated SIWC allegation to rebut Pelletier's good‑character testimony	Pelletier opened the door by claiming he was "not that kind of guy," so prior allegation was admissible on rebuttal under M. R. Evid. 404(a)(1); single question + limiting instruction mitigated prejudice	The 2003 allegation was unsubstantiated, remote (juvenile), and highly prejudicial under Rule 403; limiting instruction was defective	Admission was not barred by Rule 404(b) but allowing the 2003 allegation under 404(a)(1) was an abuse of discretion: the allegation was unsubstantiated, remote, had minimal probative value and high unfair prejudice; limiting instruction flawed; reversal warranted
2) Whether the court erred by excluding evidence of M.V.’s next‑day marijuana use to impeach her credibility (Rule 607)	Without qualified expert foundation, marijuana use was not relevant and would create a distracting "sideshow"	Toxicology and boyfriend testimony showed high THC at time of reporting; under Polak II and related precedent such evidence is admissible to impeach perception/recall and to contradict denials	Blanket exclusion was an abuse of discretion: the evidence was relevant under Rule 607 (per Polak II, Sorenson, Gleim) to impeach recall/perception and to contradict denials; should be admissible with appropriate foundation
3) Whether Pelletier received ineffective assistance for not challenging fitness or asserting the mental‑disease defense	State: IAC claims are generally not reviewable on direct appeal and are non‑record‑based	Defense: Counsel obtained an evaluation diagnosing schizophrenia but did not disclose it, challenge fitness, or assert the defense—constituting IAC	IAC claim is non‑record‑based and not resolved on direct appeal; moot in light of reversal; preserved for postconviction review

Key Cases Cited

State v. Kaarma, 390 P.3d 609 (Mont. 2017) (defendant’s character testimony can open the door to prosecution rebuttal)
State v. Austad, 641 P.2d 1373 (Mont. 1982) (prior bad‑act questioning to rebut defendant’s character testimony permissible and highly probative)
State v. Polak, 422 P.3d 112 (Mont. 2018) (witness drug use may be admissible to impeach perception/recall and to contradict denials)
State v. Moorman, 321 P.2d 236 (Mont. 1958) (cross‑examination about rumors/reports may rebut character testimony)
State v. Gowan, 13 P.3d 376 (Mont. 2000) (limits on propensity inferences from character evidence)
Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1948) (federal precedent discussing character evidence and propensity concerns)
State v. Passmore, 225 P.3d 1229 (Mont. 2010) (Rule 403 balancing for prior acts evidence)