427 P.3d 52
Mont.2018Background
- Defendant David Weik was convicted by a jury of felony stalking of Thresa Goldberg; district court sentenced him to five years (two suspended) and ordered restitution.
- Goldberg and Weik had a long on‑and‑off relationship; after Goldberg moved out in 2013 she alleged ongoing unwanted contact, protective orders, and multiple violations.
- Evidence at trial included Goldberg’s testimony about fear and resulting expenses, discovery of many of Goldberg’s personal items (including photocopies of her passport and bags of her hair) in Weik’s storage unit, and proof Weik rented the post‑office box adjacent to Goldberg’s.
- The court denied Weik’s requests to rearrange seats or exchange tables so that he could directly see Goldberg while she testified; his counsel was allowed to move but he, as an incarcerated defendant, was ordered to remain seated.
- Jury convicted; at sentencing the court awarded restitution after hearing Goldberg’s affidavit and exhibits, but the written judgment mistakenly listed a larger restitution amount than the court ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a direct face‑to‑face view of the victim during testimony violated confrontation rights | State: elements of confrontation were met because witness was physically present, sworn, cross‑examined, and observed by jury | Weik: his Article II §24 and Sixth Amendment rights required literal face‑to‑face confrontation; inability to see Goldberg undermined reliability | Held: No violation—the confrontation elements were satisfied; Montana’s "face to face" does not guarantee literal, continuous direct view |
| Whether the written judgment misstated the court’s restitution award | State: written judgment contains clerical error inconsistent with court’s restitution order | Weik: (also challenged some restitution items below but most arguments not preserved) | Held: Affirmed conviction; court instructed to correct written judgment to reflect $42,262.06 restitution (the amount the district court ordered) |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (sets forth confrontation elements and explains face‑to‑face is not absolute)
- State v. Davis, 830 P.2d 1309 (Mont. 1992) (upheld use of sightline barrier where witness present, sworn, cross‑examined, and jury could observe witness)
- State v. Bower, 833 P.2d 1106 (Mont. 1992) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)