State v. Schaeffer, 321 P.3d 809

Schaeffer filed an insurance claim for a metal roof he bought and had installed; insurer Penn-Star paid $25,079.97 after independent adjuster Dave Muzzana investigated.
Evidence included Muzzana’s investigation and an audio recording and written statements by Schaeffer; another insurer previously paid a related claim for original installation defects.
Schaeffer was charged with felony theft by insurance fraud; trial was continued after a late medical letter; defense initially listed, then withdrew, a treating neurologist as a witness.
At trial the State requested a jury instruction defining “administrator” to include persons who adjust or settle claims; the defense objected.
During closing the prosecutor argued that such fraud raises insurance rates; no contemporaneous objection was made.
Schaeffer was convicted, received a six-year deferred sentence, and was ordered to pay restitution of $25,079.97 based on Muzzana’s affidavit and supporting documentation; Schaeffer appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction definition of “administrator”	Instruction correctly stated statute and was necessary to show coverage under fraud statute	Instruction misstated law and lowered State’s burden because an adjuster is distinct from an administrator	Affirmed — instruction accurately followed statute and did not prejudice defendant
Prosecutor’s closing remarks about insurance rates (plain error review)	Comments were brief and not prejudicial in context of evidence	Remarks were improper and warrant review despite no objection	No plain error — defendant failed to show a manifest miscarriage of justice given the evidence
Restitution based on independent adjuster’s affidavit	Affidavit by adjuster on behalf of insurer satisfied statutory affidavit requirement and was supported by documentation and testimony	Insurer (victim) itself must submit the affidavit; adjuster’s affidavit was insufficient	Affirmed — adjuster was authorized to submit affidavit, supporting documentation and testimony remedied any concern
Ineffective assistance for not disclosing neurologist as expert	Counsel had tactical choices; record does not show lack of plausible justification	Trial counsel erred by listing doctor as lay witness rather than expert, prejudicing defense	Claim dismissed without prejudice — record does not explain counsel’s choice; may be raised in postconviction relief

State v. Swann, 337 Mont. 326, 160 P.3d 511 (discussing standard for jury instruction review)
State v. Hovey, 359 Mont. 100, 248 P.3d 303 (instructions must fully and fairly state law)
State v. Aker, 371 Mont. 491, 310 P.3d 506 (standards for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct claims and ineffective assistance)
Finley v. State, 276 Mont. 126, 915 P.2d 208 (plain error review framework)
State v. Gallagher, 304 Mont. 215, 19 P.3d 817 (discussing appellate review scope)
State v. McMaster, 345 Mont. 172, 190 P.3d 302 (restitution legality and evidentiary bases)
State v. Ankeny, 358 Mont. 32, 243 P.3d 391 (statutory interpretation — plain meaning)
State v. Gladue, 293 Mont. 1, 972 P.2d 827 (prosecutor comments in closing are not presumed prejudicial)
State v. Hunt, 352 Mont. 70, 214 P.3d 1234 (strictness of affidavit requirement for restitution)
State v. Pritchett, 302 Mont. 1, 11 P.3d 539 (requirements for restitution supporting documentation)
State v. Dunkerson, 317 Mont. 228, 76 P.3d 1085 (PSI defects can be remedied by evidentiary hearing)
State v. Upshaw, 335 Mont. 162, 153 P.3d 579 (when ineffective-assistance claims are appropriate on direct appeal)
State v. Kougl, 323 Mont. 6, 97 P.3d 1095 (limits on raising non-record ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. Jay, 369 Mont. 332, 298 P.3d 396 (tactical choice not to present expert testimony may be reasonable)