State v. Wittal, 447 P.3d 1039

In June 2016 officers found Wade Rautio's body; autopsy showed 25 stab wounds. Four people (Crone, Hansen, Toman, Wittal) were arrested; State alleged Crone ordered Wittal to kill Rautio over a drug debt. Wittal was charged with deliberate homicide; others were charged with accountability.
Multiple witnesses (Toman, Hansen, Crone, and two others) placed Wittal at the scene and described him stabbing Rautio; two knives were recovered consistent with testimony. Cell-phone evidence and witness observations (wet clothing, burning clothes) were admitted. Wittal testified he was not present and was set up.
The State proposed an accomplice instruction advising the jury that testimony of legally accountable witnesses (Toman, Hansen, Crone) should be viewed with distrust and must be corroborated.
Defense counsel objected, conceding the distrust admonition but arguing the instruction would confuse the jury by directing them to determine whether those witnesses were "legally accountable," which might shift focus from whether Wittal committed the homicide. The court agreed and declined to give the instruction; defense chose not to offer it.
A jury convicted Wittal of deliberate homicide; he was sentenced to 100 years plus a 10-year weapon enhancement. Wittal appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for opposing the accomplice instruction.

Issue	Wittal's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for objecting to an accomplice instruction	Counsel should have agreed to the instruction because the case hinged on credibility of alleged accomplices and their testimony lacked corroboration	Record does not explain counsel's strategic reasons; alternatively, counsel's objection was a reasonable tactical decision and the State argued corroboration existed	Court declined to decide on direct appeal: record insufficient to show counsel had no plausible justification; claim must be raised in postconviction proceedings if pursued

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Sawyer, 395 Mont. 309 (2019) (on direct appeal, ineffective-assistance claims require a record that explains counsel's reasons)
State v. Kougl, 323 Mont. 6 (2004) (court may consider counsel's actions on direct appeal where no plausible justification exists)
State v. Vukasin, 317 Mont. 204 (2003) (insufficiently developed record precludes resolving ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal)
State v. St. Germain, 336 Mont. 17 (2007) (strong presumption in favor of counsel's tactical decisions)