State v. T. Fisher, 496 P.3d 561

Background:

On Oct. 14–16, 2017 Wilbur Fisher was found shot to death at his rural home; his son Todd Fisher discovered the body and reported it to 911 with atypical demeanor and shifting statements.
DCI agents processed the scene through Tuesday; investigators left the property after completing work and Sheriff Canen returned Fisher to the house midweek.
Deputy/neighbour Brett Hoagland (also a deputy sheriff and beneficiary under Wilbur’s will) entered the property after Fisher’s arrest and hired a janitorial company that cleaned the bedroom, removing bloody sheets and other potential trace evidence.
Fisher moved to dismiss on due-process/Brady grounds, arguing lost or uncollected evidence was exculpatory and that state actors caused the loss; at trial he also argued prosecutorial burden-shifting based on the prosecutor’s questioning of his fingerprint expert.
A jury convicted Fisher of deliberate homicide and evidence-tampering; the court sentenced him to 70 years and ordered $25,250 in public defender fees. Fisher appealed the denial of his dismissal motion, the prosecutor’s comments, and the fee order.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fisher)	Held
1. Due process/Brady—did release and subsequent cleaning of the scene violate Fisher’s rights?	The State argued the scene was released from State custody before Hoagland acted; evidence was at best potentially exculpatory and there was no State bad faith.	Fisher argued the loss of bloody bedding/trace evidence was Brady material or at least potentially exculpatory and that State actors’ conduct (Sheriff/Hoagland) resulted in its loss.	Affirmed: evidence was only potentially exculpatory, Fisher failed to show bad faith, and the State did not retain custody when the scene was cleaned.
2. Prosecutorial burden-shifting—did prosecutor’s questioning and rebuttal comments impermissibly shift burden to Fisher?	The State argued questions challenged the expert’s credibility and the claimed importance of fingerprint evidence, not the State’s burden.	Fisher argued the prosecutor’s comments implied he had to prove his innocence and thus undermined the presumption of innocence.	Affirmed: trial judge and prosecutor repeatedly instructed the jury on State’s burden; questioning was credibility-based, not impermissible burden-shifting.
3. Public defender fees—did the court fail to properly determine Fisher’s ability to pay before imposing fees?	The State conceded the court did not sufficiently examine ability to pay and recommended striking the fees.	Fisher argued the court failed the required "scrupulous and meticulous" inquiry into his ability to pay under § 46-8-113, MCA.	Reversed and remanded: fees stricken for failure to adequately assess ability to pay.

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution’s duty to disclose favorable evidence)
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (discusses defendant’s right to access evidence and limits on that right)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (requires preservation of evidence with apparent exculpatory value)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (failure-to-preserve claims for potentially useful evidence require bad faith)
State v. Halter, 238 Mont. 408 (1989) (lost physical evidence with central exculpatory value can violate due process)
State v. Colvin, 383 Mont. 474 (2016) (lost evidence central to key element can undermine verdict confidence)
State v. Robertson, 395 Mont. 370 (2019) (requires more than speculation to show evidence is favorable/exculpatory)