State v. Stock, 2011 MT 131

Stock was convicted of felony incest involving his 14-year-old son E.S. and 6-year-old daughter K.S. and of felony tampering with evidence; sentencing followed 50-year terms with suspended portions and a 10-year term for tampering.
K.S. was permitted to testify outside Stock’s presence via two-way electronic audio-video communication after a pretrial hearing under Montana’s statute governing child witnesses in sexual offenses.
District Court conducted a hearing on whether K.S. could testify via electronic communication; it found necessity based on welfare and trauma considerations and allowed the testimony in this manner.
Stock unsuccessfully sought to interview and call Z.S., the four-year-old sibling, and the court denied those requests due to lack of substantial need, incompetence, and potential psychological harm to Z.S.
The State sought to introduce electronic evidence—pornographic images and related search terms—from Stock’s workplace computer under the transaction rule; the district court admitted summaries of the electronic findings, not the images themselves.
Stock appealed the K.S. testimony ruling, the Z.S. interview/witness ruling, and the admissibility of electronic evidence under the transaction rule; the Montana Supreme Court issued a consolidated affirmation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation rights with AV testimony	Stock asserts the testimony violated the Confrontation Clause.	Stock argues Craig overruled or undermines Craig-like allowances; Montana statute unconstitutional.	Statutes constitutional; no Confrontation Clause error.
Disclosure of Z.S. interview/witness	Stock contends denial of forensic interview and testimony deprived defense.	Z.S. lacked relevance, competency, and would suffer psychological harm; court acted within discretion.	No abuse of discretion; Z.S. interview/witness prohibited.
Transaction rule admissibility of electronic evidence	Stock argues evidence was not inextricably intertwined and not properly preserved for appeal.	State properly relied on transaction rule; issues preserved and admissible via summaries.	District Court's ruling affirmed; admissibility upheld and preserved.

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (allowed child testimony without face-to-face in certain conditions)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (redefines confrontation and cross-examination for testimonial statements)
Davis, 253 Mont. 50, 830 P.2d 1309 (Mont. 1992) (upholds use of intervening protective measures for child witnesses under Craig framework)
Parker, 334 Mont. 129, 144 P.3d 831 (Mont. 2006) (Montana Constitution affords greater confrontation protections than federal)
Clark, 290 Mont. 479, 964 P.2d 766 (Mont. 1998) (recognizes greater state protection under Article II, § 24)
Norquay, 359 Mont. 257, 248 P.3d 817 (Mont. 2011) (plenary review of constitutional questions related to confrontation)