State v. W. Lawrence, 385 P.3d 968

Background

On April 8, 2014 William Lawrence and his brother Steven Dubois were at Wayne Miller Coins in Helena; Dubois removed a package containing roughly $10,500 in silver coins and left the store. Lawrence was later found with about half the coins in a backpack and charged with felony theft under § 45-6-301(1)(a), MCA.
After a two-day jury trial, the prosecutor during closing argued: “The presumption of innocence that you came into this trial with no longer exists at this point.” Defense counsel did not object at trial.
The jury convicted Lawrence and he was sentenced to ten years in prison.
On appeal Lawrence raised multiple claims: prosecutorial misconduct (the presumption comment and a misstatement of law), ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to prosecutor, jury instruction, hearsay), and that the district court abused discretion by denying a mistrial after an in limine violation.
The Montana Supreme Court invoked plain-error review for the unobjected-to prosecutorial comment, concluded the statement improperly removed the presumption of innocence, found prosecutorial misconduct that deprived Lawrence of a fair trial, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial. The Court did not decide the other issues on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor’s closing-comment that “the presumption of innocence ... no longer exists”	Prosecutor’s comment removed a foundational constitutional protection and warrants reversal under the plain error doctrine	The comment was a permissible comment on the evidence viewed in context; jury instructions and burden explanation cured any potential harm	Court: Comment implicated fundamental rights, undermined fairness and jury instruction, constituted prosecutorial misconduct; reversed and remanded for new trial (plain error invoked)
Prosecutor misstating the law of theft in closing	Misstatement (e.g., implying delay in returning coins = theft) prejudiced jury by misstating mens rea required	Argument was comment on evidence; jury instructions controlled the law	Not reached on merits (decision rests on prosecutorial misconduct ground)
District Court denial of mistrial after in limine violation	Trial court abused discretion by not granting mistrial for State’s violation	Denial was within court’s discretion	Not reached on merits (remanded for new trial on prosecutorial misconduct)
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to misconduct, instruction, hearsay	Counsel’s failures cumulatively prejudiced trial; could constitute ineffective assistance	Counsel may reasonably choose not to object; errors (if any) were harmless or curable	Court did not decide ineffective-assistance claim; concurrence would find cumulative error prejudicial but majority reversed on prosecutorial-misconduct ground only

Key Cases Cited

Finley v. State, 276 Mont. 126 (Mont. 1996) (describing plain error doctrine and court’s duty to protect constitutional rights)
Aker v. State, 371 Mont. 491 (Mont. 2013) (plain error review for unobjected-to prosecutorial statements)
McDonald v. State, 369 Mont. 483 (Mont. 2013) (plain error standard; when failure to review may produce miscarriage of justice)
Hayden v. State, 345 Mont. 252 (Mont. 2008) (reversal/remand for prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument)
Makarchuk v. State, 349 Mont. 507 (Mont. 2009) (consider improper closing statements in context of entire argument)
Mahorney v. Wallman, 917 F.2d 469 (10th Cir. 1990) (prosecutor’s statement that presumption was removed held reversible error)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1935) (prosecutor’s duty to refrain from improper methods that may produce wrongful conviction)
De Lea v. State, 36 Mont. 531 (Mont. 1908) (presumption of innocence is inherent and must be overcome only by proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1895) (presumption of innocence foundational to criminal law)