State v. W. Sinz, 2021 MT 163

Defendant Wallis Sinz was charged with multiple counts of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault for alleged abuse of his eight-year-old twin nieces; conviction followed a jury trial and Sinz was sentenced to a lengthy prison term with many years suspended.
During voir dire juror D.C. disclosed a family member had been convicted of a similar crime; defense counsel did not move to remove him for cause or use a peremptory, and D.C. served as jury foreman.
Dr. Wendy Dutton testified as a blind expert on child sexual abuse disclosures, explaining general causes of false reports and saying malicious false reports are rare; she gave no case-specific credibility opinion and no objection to her testimony was raised at trial.
The jury sent two written questions during deliberations; after consulting parties on the first, the court answered the second written question (about unanimity and moving to lesser charges) in writing without bringing the parties back in.
Sinz appealed raising: ineffective assistance of counsel (for not removing D.C.), plain-error review of expert testimony (arguing it undermined presumption of innocence), and that the court erred by answering the jury question without consulting parties. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Ineffective assistance for not removing juror D.C.	The record does not support review on direct appeal; reasons for counsel's choices are not apparent and belong in postconviction proceedings.	Counsel’s failure to remove a presumptively biased juror who became foreman was deficient and created a structural defect requiring reversal.	Declined to review on direct appeal; IAC claim better suited for postconviction proceedings because the record doesn't show counsel's reasons.
2. Plain-error review of expert testimony (alleged undermining of presumption of innocence)	Expert testimony was educational and admissible; no objection at trial; no plain error.	Dr. Dutton’s testimony and research-based statements functioned like statistical testimony, effectively presuming guilt and warranting review.	Declined to invoke plain-error review: testimony was educational (not statistical), did not opine on case facts, and jurors were instructed accordingly.
3. Court answered jury question without consulting parties	The court’s written answer was legally correct and the record shows no prejudice; any absence was harmless.	Court’s unilateral answer violated defendant’s right to be present at a critical stage and required reversal.	Any error in answering without parties was harmless; the written response tracked instructions and posed no reasonable possibility of prejudice.

State v. Ward, 457 P.3d 955 (Mont. 2020) (IAC review standards; when direct-appeal review is appropriate).
State v. Christensen, 472 P.3d 622 (Mont. 2020) (plain-error review and preservation rules).
State v. Taylor, 231 P.3d 79 (Mont. 2010) (plain-error standard described).
State v. Reams, 477 P.3d 1118 (Mont. 2020) (permitting educational expert testimony in child-sexual-abuse cases; distinguishing statistical testimony).
State v. Brodniak, 718 P.2d 322 (Mont. 1986) (statistical testimony on false-reporting is improper commentary on victim credibility).
State v. Grimshaw, 469 P.3d 702 (Mont. 2020) (experts may not give false-report percentage statistics as credibility commentary).
State v. Northcutt, 358 P.3d 179 (Mont. 2015) (defendant’s right to be present at critical stages; harmless-error framework for judge–jury interactions).
State v. Tapson, 41 P.3d 305 (Mont. 2001) (reversal where judge entered jury room and no record existed of the interaction).
State v. Sanchez, 177 P.3d 444 (Mont. 2008) (presumption that juries follow instructions).