State v. Terronez
| Decision Date | 06 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | DA 16-0611 |
| Citation | State v. Terronez, 2017 MT 296, 389 Mont. 421, 406 P.3d 947 (Mont. 2017) |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jason TERRONEZ, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Tammy K Plubell, Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana, Thomas P. Meissner, Fergus County Attorney, Jean A. Adams, DeputyFergus County Attorney; Lewistown, Montana
For Appellee: Michael J. Sherwood, Michael J. Sherwood, P.C.; Missoula, Montana
¶1 The State of Montana appeals from the order entered by the Tenth Judicial District Court, Fergus County, granting DefendantJason Terronez' (Terronez)motion to withdraw his guilty plea.We affirm, addressing the following issues:
¶2 David and Sunnshine Welton are both dentists and owned Montana Family Dentistry in Lewistown, Montana.They have two children: a girl, L.W. and a boy, M.W. Dana and Jason Terronez are nurses and worked at Central Montana Medical Center in Lewistown.They have four children: three girls and one boy.Dana and Terronez were patients at the Weltons' dental clinic and the families became close friends—sharing meals, weekend gatherings, and holidays.
¶3 Sunnshine was sexually abused as a child, which made her apprehensive about letting her children participate in sleepovers with other families.She described herself as a "paranoid" mom who is hypersensitive about sexual abuse issues.As a precaution, Sunnshine educated her children about "good touch" and "bad touch" and initiated such conversations with them every six months.However, she trusted Terronez and Dana, and had permitted her daughter, five-year-old L.W., to sleep over at the Terronez household prior to the incident in question.On March 7, 2015, she again allowed L.W. to sleep over at the Terronez residence.L.W. watched a movie with Terronez and his three girls, including Terronez' oldest daughter, nine-year-old A.T. Dana was in and out of the living room while the others watched the movie, during which Terronez was seated next to L.W.After the movie, Dana asked L.W. if she wanted to go home, and L.W. said she wanted to stay at the Terronez household.
¶4 On March 8, L.W. was sitting on the toilet and told Sunnshine it hurt when she peed.L.W. also reported that, while bathing, her vagina hurt.On March 10, L.W. again complained that her vagina hurt, and Sunnshine washed it.On March 11, L.W. told Sunnshine that, during the movie at Terronez' house, Terronez had put his hand into her pajamas and touched her vagina.Sunnshine informed David, and then immediately reported this to the Lewistown Police Department.The same day, Sunnshine took L.W. to her physician, Dr. Bolstad, for a sexual abuse examination.Because more than 72 hours had lapsed since the reported contact, Dr. Bolstad did not collect biological evidence.The examination revealed L.W.'s external genitalia was normal, but internally there were four discrete areas of injury.Dr. Bolstad diagnosed the injuries as sexual abuse based on the areas of injury and what L.W. reported.
¶5 Officer Jenness interviewed A.T., who had also been in the room watching the movie at the Terronez residence.A.T. initially stated that, during the movie, she was sitting next to Terronez, but later admitted she lied to prevent Terronez from getting into trouble.However, none of Terronez' daughters or Dana reported they had seen Terronez do what L.W. had reported.At defense counsel's request, Officer Jenness also interviewed Sunnshine's brother-in-law, Jeremy Baxter, as a possible suspect.Baxter had watched L.W. and M.W. a week prior to the sleepover.Sunnshine had commented that Baxter looked like a pedophile, but later said her comment was meant as a joke.This inquiry by police did not yield any evidence implicating Baxter.Other males in L.W.'s life at the time were her brother, seven-year-old M.W., and her father, David.
¶6 On March 12, the State charged Terronez with one count of sexual intercourse without consent via digital penetration.On March 16, Honorable Jon A. Oldenburg, District Judge, recused himself from the case after David confronted him at a local restaurant, and Honorable Randal I. Spaulding assumed jurisdiction of the case.Terronez was initially represented by attorney Craig Buehler, but on April 6, a notice of substitution of counsel was filed indicating that Jeffry Foster had assumed representation of Terronez.Foster filed a motion for change of venue, arguing a reasonable apprehension existed that Terronez could not receive a fair trial in Fergus County because of: (1) the small size of the Fergus County jury pool; (2) the heinous nature of the crime; (3) both families' relationships and standing in the community; (4) statements about the case made by the Weltons to others in person and on social media; and (5) concerns expressed by court staff and law enforcement about Terronez' safety.The District Court denied the motion, but stated the matter would be reconsidered if concerns arose during voir dire.Foster also filed a motion for production of all of L.W.'s medical records by the State.After an in-camera review, the court denied the motion, reasoning the records were "devoid of any evidence that can fairly be characterized as exculpatory or useful as impeachment evidence."
¶7 On September 21, 2015, the trial began and the parties selected a jury over the next two days.That morning, the court held a final pretrial conference in-chambers with Terronez, Foster, Deputy County AttorneyJean Adams, Deputy County AttorneyMonte Boettger, and Officer Jenness.Foster reported he had received a "tongue lashing" from Sunnshine and recommended that the Weltons be excluded from trial.The court indicated it had "personally observed some facial expressions and hand gestures and things during the course of testimony" from the Weltons that caused "considerable concern about potential mistrial."The court ordered the Weltons be excluded from trial until they testify, upon which it would re-evaluate the situation.On September 22, the court had a conference in-chambers with the same parties.Adams reported that Sunnshine may have had a purposeful encounter with a prospective juror in the women's restroom.Foster moved to extend the Weltons' exclusion from the courthouse for the entirety of the trial.After interviewing a witness to the incident, the court granted the request, basing its decision mainly on David's earlier confrontation with Judge Oldenburg and Sunnshine's encounter with potential jurors.1Foster renewed his motion for a change of venue, but the court denied the motion, stating instead it would admonish the jurors not to talk about the case.
¶8 On September 23, the court held another conference with the same parties in-chambers.Officer Jenness brought to the court's attention a report that David, while viewing the proceeding remotely, had stated that if the jury found Terronez not guilty, he would "take care of it himself."The parties discussed increased protection for Terronez.On Friday, September 25, at another in-chambers conference with the same parties, Officer Jenness reported to the court that, sometime during the previous evening, a large chunk of concrete had been thrown through the windshield of Foster's vehicle while it was parked outside the Terronez household.Foster renewed his motion for change of venue and also moved for a mistrial, stating the culmination of issues had "infect [ed][the] proceeding."The court denied the motion, but again sternly admonished the jurors.Foster expressed his concern, stating he had not "had a lot of time to process" what had occurred and he"just [didn't] know what to do or how to handle" the incident.Foster also expressed his concern for the Terronez children, who were also witnesses, and the rest of Terronez' family.He advised the courthe wasn't prepared to proceed.The court expressed sympathy, noting that it had "not had anything quite as extraordinary as this happen," and adjourned the trial until the following Monday.
¶9 Several witnesses testified at trial.L.W. stated that Terronez had used his hand to touch her privates and that his hand was outside her vagina, but in response to a leading question, affirmed his hand had been inside her vagina.Dr. Bolstad testified regarding L.W.'s injuries, stating her diagnosis was partially based on what L.W. reported to have occurred and that she could not state with medical certainty that L.W. sustained her injuries on March 7, or rule out infection or self-touch as explanations.Dr. Bolstad explained that, when L.W. was two or three years old, she had a skin condition called mollescum contagiosum, an infection of small vesicles on her back thighs and buttocks.However, at a January 9, 2015, check-up, two months before the incident, L.W.'s skin was clear.Dr. Bolstad further established that L.W. never had vaginal complaints or urinary tract symptoms.Although Foster had originally planned to call A.T. as a witness and stated his intent to do so in his opening statement, he ultimately decided against doing so and negotiated a stipulation with the State to avoid calling A.T.
¶10 On Monday, September 28, the court held a conference in-chambers with Terronez, Foster, Adams, County AttorneyThomas Meissner(substituting for Boettger), Undersheriff Vaughn, Officer Jenness, and Sheriff Troy Eades.The purpose of the conference was for law enforcement to provide an update on security measures and concerns.Eades commented on the concrete block thrown through Foster's windshield, indicating in his years securing "several trials in this...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Newbary
...because the defendant is waiving his constitutional rights to not incriminate himself and to a trial by jury. State v. Terronez , 2017 MT 296, ¶ 27, 389 Mont. 421, 406 P.3d 947 (citation omitted). This Court has adopted the standard articulated in Brady v. United States , 397 U.S. 742, 90 S......
-
State v. Meeks
...MCA. We review a district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing for a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Terronez , 2017 MT 296, ¶ 19, 389 Mont. 421, 406 P.3d 947 (citing State v. Schulke , 2005 MT 77, ¶ 10, 326 Mont. 390, 109 P.3d 744 ).¶9 In this case, Meeks did not request an evident......
-
L.R. v. Martin
...OF REVIEW ¶7 We review a district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing for a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Terronez , 2017 MT 296, ¶ 19, 389 Mont. 421, 406 P.3d 947 (citing State v. Schulke , 2005 MT 77, ¶ 10, 326 Mont. 390, 109 P.3d 744 ). We review the underlying findings in sup......
-
State v. Lucero
... ... defense counsel; the adequacy of the change of plea colloquy; ... whether the accused received effective assistance of counsel; ... and whether the plea was induced by any threat, ... misrepresentation, or improper promise, inducement, or ... influence. State v. Terronez, 2017 MT 296, ... ¶¶ 27-28, 389 Mont. 421, 406 P.3d 947; State v ... Usrey, 2009 MT 227, ¶ 17, 351 Mont. 341, 212 P.3d ... 279; Brady, 397 U.S. at 755, 90 S.Ct. at 1472. This ... searching inquiry necessarily includes consideration, ... inter alia, of the state of mind and subjective ... ...