Taylor v. State, 335 P.3d 1218

Taylor, a massage therapist, was accused by a client ("Doe") of digital vaginal penetration during a massage; no rape exam or physical evidence was collected by police and fingernail scrapings requested by Taylor were not taken.
Taylor was arrested after an interview; he maintained innocence and asked for scrapings to prove it, but the record does not show officers impeded his own ability to obtain them later.
At trial the State produced no physical evidence; defense counsel emphasized the lack of a rape exam to argue reasonable doubt.
Counsel initially proposed, then withdrew, a lesser-included-offense instruction for sexual assault; counsel consistently pursued a strategy of outright acquittal.
Taylor was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent (felony) and sexual assault (misdemeanor); direct appeal affirmed and ineffective-assistance claims were reserved for postconviction proceedings.
The District Court denied postconviction relief; the Montana Supreme Court affirms, finding counsel’s performance within competent professional standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss or requesting a spoliation/missing-evidence instruction due to lack of rape exam and missing fingernail scrapings	Taylor: failure to collect/preserve potentially exculpatory evidence denied due process; counsel should have sought dismissal or spoliation instruction	State: evidence could be inculpatory or exculpatory; police had no duty to gather exculpatory evidence and there is no bad faith here	Counsel not ineffective; police had no duty to collect, lost evidence was only potentially exculpatory, no bad faith or materiality shown, and counsel argued the lack of exam at trial
Whether counsel was ineffective for withdrawing a proposed lesser-included-offense instruction (sexual assault)	Taylor: facts supported giving the lesser instruction	State: the evidence/theory would have required acquittal, not a lesser conviction	Counsel not ineffective; pursuing acquittal was a reasonable tactical decision and the defendant’s theory, if believed, would have resulted in acquittal rather than a lesser conviction

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (lost evidence only potentially exculpatory requires a showing of bad faith for due process violation)
State v. Giddings, 2009 MT 61, 349 Mont. 347, 208 P.3d 363 (negligent suppression of evidence requires materiality and substantial value to violate due process)
State v. Jay, 2013 MT 79, 369 Mont. 332, 298 P.3d 396 (two-step analysis for lesser-included offense instruction and when evidence supports it)
State v. Williams, 2010 MT 58, 355 Mont. 354, 228 P.3d 1127 (recognizing sexual assault as a lesser included offense of sexual intercourse without consent)
State v. Sadowski, 247 Mont. 63, 805 P.2d 537 (police must not interfere with defendant’s efforts to obtain evidence)