State v. Morales
Decision Date | 28 July 2020 |
Docket Number | DA 18-0588 |
Citation | 468 P.3d 355,2020 MT 188,400 Mont. 442 |
Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Tristan James MORALES, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Gregory Hood, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Scott D. Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney, Michael Ellinghouse, Morgan Dake, Deputy County Attorneys, Billings, Montana
¶1 Tristan James Morales appeals his conviction in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, of one count of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent. Morales challenges the District Court's denial of his motion to strike a prospective juror for cause. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
¶2 On July 12, 2017, the State charged Morales with one count of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a felony, alleging that he raped his eight-year-old niece earlier that year.1 Morales entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to trial. On the first day of trial, prior to voir dire, the court distributed a questionnaire to prospective jurors asking whether they or anyone they knew had been a victim of sexual assault or whether they held strong beliefs that would make it difficult to serve as a juror in Morales's case. The court then conducted individual in-chambers voir dire of sixteen prospective jurors based on their responses to the questionnaire. The court released seven of nine jurors Morales challenged for cause based on their experiences with or strong beliefs about sexual assault, one over the prosecution's objection. When the questioning turned to prospective juror R.C., she revealed in chambers that her sister, foster children with whom she grew up, and a close friend all had been sexually abused as children. The District Court questioned R.C.:
¶3 At this point, the prosecutor asked the court if she could elaborate and engaged R.C. in the following line of questioning:
¶4 Defense counsel then followed up:
¶5 Morales moved to strike R.C. for cause. The prosecutor asked R.C. whether she would be able to follow the court's instructions and not infer guilt if Morales exercised his constitutional right to not testify. R.C. replied, The court addressed R.C.:
¶6 The court denied Morales's motion to remove R.C. for cause. Morales subsequently used a peremptory challenge to strike her from the panel and exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. At the conclusion of trial, Morales was convicted and sentenced to 100 years in prison, with 50 years suspended and a 25-year parole restriction. This appeal followed.
¶7 We review for abuse of discretion a district court's denial of a challenge to a prospective juror for cause. State v. Anderson , 2019 MT 190, ¶ 11, 397 Mont. 1, 446 P.3d 1134 (citing State v. Cudd , 2014 MT 140, ¶ 6, 375 Mont. 215, 326 P.3d 417 ). "A district court abuses its discretion if it denies a challenge for cause when a prospective juror's statements during voir dire raise serious doubts about her ability to be fair and impartial or actual bias is discovered." Anderson , ¶ 11 (citing Cudd , ¶ 6 ); see also State v. Jeremiah Johnson , 2014 MT 11, ¶ 8, 373 Mont. 330, 317 P.3d 164. If the defendant subsequently uses a peremptory challenge to strike the prospective juror and ultimately exhausts all afforded peremptory challenges, the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause constitutes structural error requiring automatic reversal. State v. Johnson , 2019 MT 68, ¶ 7, 395 Mont. 169, 437 P.3d 147 (citing State v. Good , 2002 MT 59, ¶¶ 62-65, 309 Mont. 113, 43 P.3d 948 ); see also State v. Allen , 2010 MT 214, ¶ 20, 357 Mont. 495, 241 P.2d 1045.
¶8 Morales argues that the District Court abused its discretion in denying his for-cause challenge to R.C. because her voir dire statements demonstrated an inability to act fairly and impartially in his trial. He contends that because he had to exercise a peremptory strike to remove R.C. and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Montana v. Deveraux
...OF REVIEW ¶19 We review a district court's denial of a challenge to remove a prospective juror for cause for abuse of discretion. State v. Morales , 2020 MT 188, ¶ 7, 400 Mont. 442, 468 P.3d 355 (citing State v. Anderson , 2019 MT 190, ¶ 11, 397 Mont. 1, 446 P.3d 1134 ). "A district court a......
-
State v. Deveraux
...OF REVIEW ¶19 We review a district court's denial of a challenge to remove a prospective juror for cause for abuse of discretion. State v. Morales, 2020 MT 188, ¶ 7, 400 442, 468 P.3d 355 (citing State v. Anderson, 2019 MT 190, ¶ 11, 397 Mont. 1, 446 P.3d 1134). "A district court abuses its......
- Lerman v. State