State v. Mathis

• Decision Date: 06 September 2022
• Docket Number: DA 20-0409
• Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. HOLLY ANN MATHIS, aka, HOLLY ANN NORLING, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. HOLLY ANN MATHIS, aka, HOLLY ANN NORLING, Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA 20-0409

Supreme Court of Montana

September 6, 2022

ORDER

Appellant Holly Ann Mathis (Mathis) has filed a Petition for Rehearing of this Court's opinion in State v. Mathis, 2022 MT 156, 409 Mont, 348,P.3d(Opinion), affirming Mathis's conviction for incest. Mathis challenges only our decision regarding issue one: whether the district court correctly denied Mathis's motion to interview T.N. and J.M. This Court affirmed the District Court's denial of Mathis's request. We concluded that the record established the children had declined any further interviews and further recognized a witness's right to decline an interview. In her Petition, Mathis argues that the record does not support a conclusion that the children themselves declined interviews. Mathis raised this argument in her reply brief in response to the State's answer brief.

Under M. R. App. P. 20, this Court seldom grants petitions for rehearing. The Rule makes clear that this Court will entertain a petition for rehearing on very limited grounds. Specifically, this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only if the opinion "overlooked some fact material to the decision," if the opinion "overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case," or if the "decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by this Court. M. R. App. P 20(a)(i)-(iii).

Here Mathis would have us ignore a clear and unambiguous representation made by Mathis in her motion for the children's interviews filed before the trial court: that she had "diligently sought access to both [T.N.] and [J.M.] for pretrial interviews [and] [t]o date, all requests have been denied." Opinion, ¶ 11. n. 4. Based on this unqualified representation alone, without considering other representations and responses made by the parties in the trial court pleadings, this Court correctly relied on Mathis's representation that the children had declined any further interviews. If it had been otherwise, it was Mathis's burden to demonstrate that § 46-15-320 MCA, was being unconstitutionally applied to her under the facts of her case. Thus, this Court has not overlooked a material fact or any arguments presented in Mathis's reply brief. To the contrary, we simply rejected Mathis's argument and her interpretation of the...