c ir-641.—if 

DA 20-0066

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2021 MT 303

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

MICHAEL JOSEPH McCOY,

 Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. DDC 18-709

Honorable John W. Parker, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Kristina L. Neal, Assistant Appellate 

Defender, Helena, Montana

For Appellee:

Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Roy Brown, Assistant

Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Joshua A. Racki, Cascade County Attorney, Susan Weber, Stephanie Fuller, 

Deputy County Attorneys, Great Falls, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: October 27, 2021

 Decided: November 23, 2021

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

11/23/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0066
2

Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 Michael Joseph McCoy (McCoy) was convicted in the Eighth Judicial District 

Court, Cascade County, of Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs, § 45-9-101, MCA, 

and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, § 45-5-622(3)(c), MCA. He appeals his drug 

offense conviction, contending the State presented insufficient evidence for the jury to find 

him guilty. He also asserts the District Court deprived him of his right of allocution during

his sentencing hearing.

¶2 We restate the issues as follows: 

1. Did the State present sufficient evidence for the jury to convict McCoy of 

criminal distribution of dangerous drugs?

2. Did the District Court deny McCoy an opportunity for allocution at his 

sentencing hearing in violation of § 46-18-115, MCA, and his right to due

process? 

¶3 We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

McCoy’s Charges and Jury Trial 

¶4 L.B., a minor, lived with defendant McCoy in his Great Falls home as a baby when 

his maternal grandmother, Mary Marceau (Marceau), was in a relationship with McCoy, 

who L.B. grew up calling “Grandpa.”

1

 When L.B. was about two years old, Marceau and 

McCoy parted ways, and for a long period thereafter L.B. lived separately with Marceau, 

 

1 L.B. testified that he called McCoy “Grandpa” when he was young, and that McCoy was “like a 

grandpa” to him. Throughout his testimony he referred to McCoy as “Mike.” McCoy described 

his relationship to L.B. as “step-grandfather.”
3

who acted as his guardian. Nancy Brown (Brown), who is L.B.’s mother and Marceau’s 

daughter, also lived in McCoy’s home as a teenager and grew up knowing McCoy as her 

stepfather. Brown had a long-term struggle with drug addiction, primarily using heroin but 

also methamphetamine (meth). Due to Brown’s addiction and lifestyle, Marceau

prohibited Brown from living with her and L.B. However, McCoy allowed Brown to move 

back into his home in 2015. 

¶5 Brown testified that when she returned to live with McCoy, McCoy and his house 

had drastically changed from the time she lived there growing up. She remembered him 

previously as being “strict,” but by 2015, “He was the total opposite. Everything that he 

would . . . get mad about me or talk about me doing, he was doing. I mean, I was shocked.” 

What McCoy had started “doing” was using drugs. “[H]e was too nice of a person letting 

people walk all over him. He was losing his things,” Brown said. “[H]e was going about 

everything the wrong way. We all were, because of drugs.” Living with McCoy facilitated 

Brown’s drug addiction. In 2017, L.B. was thirteen years old and living with Marceau only 

a block from McCoy’s house, with Brown occupying McCoy’s basement. 

¶6 In August 2018, a detective conducted a forensic interview with L.B. at the Child 

Advocacy Center. L.B. told the detective that McCoy exposed him to and provided him 

with meth between June 2017 and September 2018, during which time he was a regular 

visitor to McCoy’s home. Detective Robert Lopez (Lopez) observed the forensic interview 

with L.B., and thereafter visited with Brown, who was then attending an addiction 

treatment center, about L.B.’s allegations, which she confirmed. In October 2018, McCoy 
4

was arrested and charged with Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs, a felony (Count 

1), and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, a felony (Count 2).2 Brown was also charged 

as McCoy’s co-defendant. 

¶7 At McCoy’s jury trial, L.B. testified that the first time he returned to McCoy’s home 

as a teenager in 2017, he was attempting to visit Brown, but surprised her and her boyfriend 

in the basement as they were about to shoot up heroin. L.B. left the basement, went 

upstairs, and reunited with McCoy, who he found sitting in his favorite chair in the living 

room with several guests. The guests were sitting on couches passing around a meth pipe, 

but L.B. did not see McCoy smoke at this time and did not then participate in the drug use. 

After L.B., thirteen years old and in seventh grade, had been going to McCoy’s house 

almost daily after school for a period of six months, a guest there showed him how to smoke 

meth and he used the drug for the first time. Thereafter, L.B. began smoking meth regularly 

at McCoy’s home. L.B. testified concerning the first time he smoked with McCoy: “I just 

asked him [(McCoy)] if I could see his pipe. And I loaded it, handed it back to him, and 

then we just passed it around.” L.B. testified that McCoy’s pipe or “loke” was 

clear-colored, “long glass, ball at the end, hole on top of the ball.”

¶8 L.B. identified McCoy’s favorite chair and the surrounding couches in the State’s 

photo exhibits and testified that McCoy sat in his chair “[a]ll the time. That was his chair.” 

 

2 The State originally charged McCoy with Criminal Child Endangerment under § 45-5-628(1)(d), 

MCA, as an alternative charge in Count 1. The State dropped this alternative charge at the close 

of its case-in-chief during trial. 
5

L.B. testified McCoy would sit in the chair when they smoked meth together. For a period 

of three to four months, McCoy and L.B. smoked together “at least twice a day,” always 

loading and passing McCoy’s clear pipe between them. L.B. described the substance they 

smoked as “crystals” or “powder,” and that it was stored in “baggies.” L.B. testified that 

there were other people at McCoy’s house continuously, and that he was present while 

McCoy sat in his chair with up to six other people on the surrounding couches in the living 

room smoking meth. The State inquired further about McCoy’s house guests: 

Prosecutor: Where did the drug use come in? Were they there –

L.B.: – they were there for a spot to, you know, hang out for a little bit and 

for them to hang out there that would, you know, get them high. 

Prosecutor: So it was kind of like a – was it a safe house where you –

L.B: Yeah. 

Prosecutor: – could go and use your drugs? 

L.B.: Yeah. 

Prosecutor: Did [McCoy] have any specifications about the people that he let 

into the house? 

L.B: No. 

Prosecutor: So he would just let anybody in? 

L.B: Oh. Well, not really anybody. Maybe if – it would be my mom’s friends 

or just his friends, yeah. But not just anybody would just go over there. It 

was people he knew.

¶9 When he smoked meth, L.B. reported feeling “good,” “more awake,” “like [he] 

could do anything [he] wanted.” McCoy suffered from persistent hip pain and other health 

issues, but L.B. testified that, when McCoy smoked, he “wouldn’t be sick [any] more. He’d 
6

be normal, sitting in his chair. He’d be good.” L.B. testified, “Every time I had [meth], 

and if [McCoy] was sick, I would ask him if he wanted to smoke.” There were drugs at 

McCoy’s home “most of the days” L.B. was there, and when he did not get meth from 

McCoy, he bought it with money he obtained through stealing. However, he consistently 

took the drugs to McCoy’s house to use. 

¶10 L.B. testified to feeling scared when the police would show up at McCoy’s house 

with warrants looking for people, and sometimes arrest other house guests while L.B. was 

present. He reported that “a lot [of the people at McCoy’s house] always went to jail.” He 

felt like he needed to act “like an adult” and “like someone [he] wasn’t” while at McCoy’s 

house because he was surrounded by older people and drug users. On three to five 

occasions he acted as a “middleman” between McCoy and his teenage friends, exchanging 

their money with McCoy for meth. L.B. recounted one occurrence when his friend gave

him ten dollars to give to McCoy, who in return gave the teenagers his pipe loaded with 

meth and instructed them to smoke it in the bathroom. 

¶11 L.B. testified McCoy never asked him or any of his guests to leave, and that he and 

Brown were the ones to require that people leave when McCoy fell asleep in his chair, “so 

nobody stole [his] stuff or went through [his] stuff while he was sleeping.” L.B. also 

testified that, after “essentially living there” for weeks at a time, he would sometimes “get 

kicked out,” but “[he’d] always be able to come back.” When questioned by the defense, 

L.B. denied that McCoy ever asked him not to come to his house, clarifying that he only 

“snuck in” when bringing other kids over to hang out in the basement. He acknowledged 
7

his mother, Brown, asked him not to hang around the house and the people there, but that 

he did not obey her “[b]ecause I didn’t care at the moment. I was under the influence, and 

I just didn’t care.”

¶12 Brown testified after L.B. At the time of trial, she was still a charged co-defendant 

with McCoy and incarcerated at the Cascade County Detention Center.3 Brown testified 

L.B. had been “coming around” McCoy’s home when she was living in his basement in 

2017 and 2018. She worried about L.B. being in that environment, but her own drug use 

impeded her ability to direct her son:

[L.B.] needed to be out of there, and I told him he needed to. But then again, 

when he needed a place to stay, I let him come there. I would never push 

him away or whatever. I knew it was bad for him . . . Also, other times too, 

when he was in the house, like, I was downstairs, he’d be upstairs. I didn’t 

have no control. I know we didn’t want him there, but he was there.

Brown testified she overheard McCoy telling L.B. that he did not want L.B. “hanging 

around at the house.” She had spoken with McCoy, and they agreed his home was a 

dangerous place for L.B. However, they both still allowed him to be there and to associate 

with drug users and dealers. 

¶13 Brown confirmed that McCoy spent his time upstairs on the main floor, primarily 

in his favorite chair in the living room, where he would eat, sleep, and smoke meth. She 

believed he spent most of his time there due to a broken hip. When asked how often she 

 

3 Prior to McCoy’s trial, Brown had pled guilty to the distribution of dangerous drugs charge and 

was awaiting sentencing. L.B. was in custody at the Juvenile Detention Center for unrelated drug 

charges, and he was scheduled to enter chemical dependency treatment following the trial. Brown 

and L.B. both received immunity for their testimonies against McCoy, but the record does not 

indicate whether their sentences were impacted by their cooperation.
8

saw McCoy smoking meth in the house, Brown answered, “A lot. Almost every other day. 

A lot.” Brown also testified other people were often in the house. According to Brown,

they were:

Our friends. Bad people. People that needed a place to stay. People that 

needed to make our house a pitstop. They were on drugs. Sometimes wanted 

from the cops and just needed a place to – for a pitstop. And that was it. That 

was just the spot for them to, you know, to be and to hide and to whatever. 

Brown recalled times the house was raided by the Drug Task Force, and that “wanted” 

people had been arrested there.

¶14 Brown became aware in 2017 that L.B. was using meth by “the way he was acting” 

and the “people he was hanging around with”— “older people that [she] knew that were in 

the drug scene.” Brown testified that she never actually saw McCoy give L.B. drugs or 

smoke meth with him and did not see L.B. use drugs at McCoy’s home, but stated she knew 

her son was using and was suspicious because “[she] would come upstairs and [L.B.] would 

be up there with known drug users and [McCoy].” 

¶15 Detective Lopez testified he had worked on the Drug Task Force for the Great Falls 

Police Department for thirteen years, and offered testimony about the effects of meth use, 

stating it “impairs people’s judgment when it comes to just rational thought, people become 

aggressive, they’ll do things that they normally wouldn’t do when it comes to crime . . . 

work ethic, school.” Lopez was familiar with McCoy and his home, having visited the 

house for multiple drug investigations, and having served multiple search warrants at the 

residence. At one point, he and his partner had to “run down a federal fugitive who was at 

the house.” Lopez explained that local police considered McCoy’s home a “drug house, a 
9

flop house, a house that people would frequent.” Neighbors “constantly call[ed] [the Drug 

Task Force] demanding that [they] take action, because [the neighbors] were tired of all 

the high traffic activity outside the house.” Lopez recalled he had been to the house “many 

times” and had often seen people on the couches. Commonly coming and going from the 

residence were people he had contact with through drug investigations, “people immersed 

in the drug culture.” Although he never witnessed people dealing drugs or doing drugs at 

McCoy’s house, Lopez found drugs and drug paraphernalia inside the house during a prior, 

unrelated police search. 

¶16 Lopez testified that, sometime after he had interviewed Brown at the drug treatment 

center, she contacted him and asked him to advise McCoy that she had been hospitalized

for surgery. Lopez and his partner went to McCoy’s house and related this news. They 

also asked McCoy about L.B.’s report that McCoy had provided meth to him. Lopez 

testified that McCoy denied giving drugs to L.B., but that he acknowledged that, although 

L.B. was supposed to be living with his grandma, L.B. essentially lived at McCoy’s home

during the time when L.B. alleged he had provided him with meth. McCoy “agreed that 

[L.B.] was out of control, was being negatively affected by the lifestyle in the house . . . . 

was a meth user and a heroin user and a marijuana user.” McCoy expressed concern to 

Lopez that L.B. “was getting wrapped up in the gangster-style culture that people brought 

to the house.” McCoy admitted to being a drug user himself, and that other people did 

drugs in his home. 
10

¶17 McCoy testified in his own defense. He confirmed L.B. had lived with him and 

Marceau as a baby, but that the teenage L.B. “was not allowed to live with [him],” and he 

had told L.B. repeatedly he was not welcome at his house. Despite this instruction, McCoy 

admitted “it was so difficult to say no to [L.B.], to keep a child from seeing his mother,”

and thus, “I allowed him to stay.” McCoy admitted to being a “casual” meth user, smoking 

the drug from a clear, glass pipe while sitting in his living room chair. Around 2015, he

had started “experimenting” with the drug to ease his pain following a hip replacement. 

He confirmed that L.B. had become a “pretty regular visitor” by 2017, and McCoy admitted 

to smoking meth in the house during that time, though denied ever providing L.B. with 

drugs. 

¶18 McCoy explained he sat in his favorite chair in the living room because of his 

limited mobility from a hip condition, and “so [he] could monitor what’s going on in [his] 

house . . . any robbery or thieving going on . . . watch the door and then also. . . the people 

that [came] in.” McCoy said L.B. would sometimes enter through the back door, which 

was not visible from McCoy’s chair, and go straight to the basement to see his mother, 

“completely avoid[ing]” McCoy: “[H]e was there to visit his mother, not me.” McCoy

also alluded to L.B. stealing from him and mentioned L.B. had been arrested at his house 

for truancy. 

¶19 McCoy agreed his house had become “a place where drug users would hang out,” 

use meth and conduct drug deals, but he felt like he “got overran by [Brown’s] friends.” 

McCoy stated: “I got took over . . . I didn’t want any drugs going on in my house or drug 
11

dealing going on my house, but it occurred . . . it was hidden from me.” According to 

McCoy, Brown’s addict friends would not use drugs in the living room with him or on the 

couches, but rather use meth and heroin in the basement with Brown, concealing their 

activities from him. McCoy estimated fourteen people had been arrested at his house, with 

seven being arrested at one time for outstanding warrants. 

¶20 The jury found McCoy guilty of both charged offenses. 

McCoy’s Sentencing Hearing 

¶21 At McCoy’s sentencing hearing, following the State’s witness, McCoy’s counsel 

informed the court that McCoy would present no witnesses. The District Judge then stated:

THE COURT: All right. Did you[r] client wish to address the [c]ourt? 

DEFENSE: I believe he would like to address the [c]ourt at some point, yes, 

Judge.

THE COURT: All right. I’ll leave it to you whether that’d be before or after 

your argument. I have reviewed the sentence memoranda of the parties. I

found them very helpful in framing your positions heading into this 

argument. 

¶22 The State recommended a ten-year prison sentence with five years suspended for 

Count 1, and a five-year sentence with no time suspended for Count 2. McCoy’s counsel 

then presented his argument, emphasizing that Brown and L.B. were responsible for their 

own actions and focusing on McCoy’s minimal criminal record, health concerns, and age.4 

He asked for community placement and chemical dependency evaluation and treatment for 

McCoy. In the alternative, he asked for a seven-year Department of Corrections 

 

4 McCoy was 62 years old at the time of sentencing. 
12

commitment with four years suspended. The State responded in rebuttal to clarify a few 

points. 

¶23 The District Court then explained to the parties his considerations for sentencing, 

noting “there’s a difference between doing well on supervision and doing well as an 

unfettered citizen in the community. I think this record shows he can do well on 

supervision. He cannot do well without some oversight.” The court expressed particular 

concern about the amount of criminal activity McCoy allowed to take place in his home 

and its effect on the community. The District Court sentenced McCoy to a fifteen-year 

prison sentence with ten years suspended for Count 1, and a five-year prison sentence with 

no time suspended for Count 2, to run concurrently. 

¶24 The District Court then asked, “are there any additional findings, conclusions, or 

order you’d have me make on this record today?,” first to the prosecutor, and then to the 

defense. McCoy’s counsel replied, “No, Your Honor. Thank you.” Lastly, the court 

addressed McCoy personally regarding the sentence it was imposing and the consequences 

of future criminal behaviors. McCoy replied, “Yes, Your Honor,” which concluded the 

hearing. 

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶25 We review the question of whether sufficient evidence supports a criminal 

conviction de novo. State v. Burwell, 2013 MT 332, ¶ 6, 372 Mont. 401, 313 P.3d 119 

(citation omitted). We consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, and we will uphold a conviction where “any rational trier of fact could have 
13

found all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Burwell, ¶ 6 

(citations and internal quotations omitted). 

¶26 This Court reviews criminal sentences for legality, and “[w]e review de novo 

whether a district court violated a defendant’s constitutional rights at sentencing.” State v. 

Keefe, 2021 MT 8, ¶¶ 10-11, 403 Mont. 1, 478 P.3d 830 (citation omitted). We review 

questions of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Payne, 2021 MT 256, ¶ 14, 405 

Mont. 511, 496 P.3d 546 (citing Sartain v. State, 2017 MT 216, ¶ 9, 388 Mont. 421, 401 

P.3d 701). 

DISCUSSION

¶27 1. Did the State present sufficient evidence for the jury to convict McCoy of criminal 

distribution of dangerous drugs?

¶28 Due process requires that the State prove each element of a charged offense beyond 

a reasonable doubt. State v. Christensen, 2020 MT 237, ¶ 118, 401 Mont. 247, 472 P.3d 

622. “[A] person commits the offense of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs if the 

person sells, barters, exchanges, gives away, or offers to sell, barter, exchange, or give 

away any dangerous drug, as defined in 50-32-101.” Section 45-9-101, MCA. Meth is 

classified as a Schedule II dangerous drug under § 50-32-224(3)(d), MCA. 

¶29 McCoy’s argument focuses on whether the State presented sufficient evidence at 

trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance L.B. claimed McCoy provided 

to him was in fact meth.5 McCoy asserts the evidence was insufficient because the State

 

5 McCoy’s briefing does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction 

for Endangering the Welfare of a Child, or otherwise challenge it, and we do not address it.
14

failed to present any medical or expert testimony regarding the substance, L.B. was the 

only witness who testified to seeing the substance in question, and the substance itself was 

never obtained or tested by law enforcement. 

¶30 “When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, it is our job as an appellate court 

to probe the record for evidence to support the fact-finder’s determination.” State v. 

Dineen, 2020 MT 193, ¶ 14, 400 Mont. 461, 469 P.3d 122 (quoting Murray v. Whitcraft, 

2012 MT 298, ¶ 26, 367 Mont. 364, 291 P.3d 587). Our only task is to determine if the 

verdict is supported by substantial evidence. “A verdict based on substantial evidence will 

not be disturbed on appeal.” State v. Salois, 235 Mont. 276, 281, 766 P.2d, 1306, 1310 

(1988). “Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient 

to support a conclusion.” State v. Henrich, 268 Mont. 258, 268, 886 P.2d 402, 408 (1994).

Although evidence of testing of a suspected substance is preferred, “[t]he failure to have a 

suspected drug substance tested by the state crime lab does not always render the evidence 

insufficient to support a conviction.” Burwell, ¶ 8 (citing Salois, 235 Mont. at 279-80, 766 

P.2d at 1309). A jury may consider all direct and circumstantial evidence, as well as any 

legitimate inferences that may be legally drawn from the evidence. Christensen, ¶ 118. 

Direct “[t]estimonial proof of possession of a dangerous drug is sufficient to sustain a 

conviction.” State v. Hull, 158 Mont. 6, 18, 487 P.2d 1314, 1321 (1971). “[C]ircumstantial 

evidence may [] support the conclusion that a substance is a dangerous drug.” Burwell, 

¶ 8; Henrich, 268 Mont. at 269, 886 P.2d at 409 (citing State v. Dunn, 155 Mont. 319, 472 

P.2d 288 (1970)). “A single witness’ testimony is sufficient to prove a fact, and the State 
15

may use circumstantial evidence to prove any element of an offense.” State v. Kaske, 2002 

MT 106, ¶ 25, 309 Mont. 445, 47 P.3d 824 (citation omitted). “[D]eterminations of the 

credibility and weight of testimony are within the exclusive province of the jury, and 

conflicting testimony does not render the evidence insufficient to support a guilty verdict.” 

State v. Wood, 2008 MT 298, ¶ 43, 345 Mont. 487, 191 P.3d 463. (Internal quotations and 

citations omitted). 

¶31 Cases involving the identification of a drug substance not tested by law enforcement 

are fact specific. In Dunn, the defendant provided a teenage girl with LSD pills which she 

ingested with her friend. Dunn, 155 Mont. at 321, 472 P.2d at 290-91. Although the pills 

themselves were already ingested, and thus unavailable to law enforcement, we reasoned

the unavailability did not render the evidence insufficient. At trial, both teenagers testified 

in detail about their experiences hallucinating after ingesting the pill. Dunn, 155 Mont. at 

332, 472 P.2d at 296. The teenagers were high in the presence of their parents who 

corroborated the drug’s effect: One father “described his daughter as being completely 

disoriented, wandering off in her conversation, laughing, crying, and uncontrollably 

shaking.” Dunn, 155 Mont. at 333, 472 P.2d at 296. The second father, a physician, gave 

his medical opinion that, based on his observations of his daughter, the pills ingested were 

“[LSD] or one of the hallucinatory drugs . . . but without a chemical analysis he could not 

be certain of the derivative of the drug.” Dunn, 155 Mont. at 333, 472 P.2d at 297 (internal 

quotation omitted). We affirmed the conviction, concluding there was “substantial credible 

evidence to support the jury verdict.” Dunn, 155 Mont. at 335, 472 P.2d at 298. 
16

¶32 In Henrich, we reversed the defendant’s conviction for endangering the welfare of 

a child by allegedly providing his daughter with meth. We found the evidence to be 

insufficient and distinguished the facts from Dunn: 

[T]he circumstantial evidence in this case was not sufficient to establish 

Henrich was guilty of the charged offense. [The minor victim’s] unqualified 

opinion is insufficient to establish that the alleged drug was 

methamphetamine. The State did not introduce a bottle of the pills, any 

analysis of the pills, or any expert analysis of [the victim’s] reaction to the 

pills. Her testimony that she shook, was wide awake, and that her hair tingled 

from ingestion of the substance was not supported by other testimony, as in 

Dunn. 

Henrich, 268 Mont. at 269-70, 886 P.2d at 409. 

¶33 In Burwell, the State brought charges after a woman in detention alleged that a “man 

whose name she could not remember” gave her marijuana in exchange for babysitting. She 

gave a “vague physical description” of the man and the location of his house, and the police 

used her description of the defendant’s residence and the fact that Burwell had a medical 

marijuana card to identify and arrest Burwell for criminal distribution of dangerous drugs. 

Burwell, ¶ 3. At trial, the woman testified she had “‘smoked a bowl’” of marijuana with 

Burwell, and that he gave her a baggie with a substance she described as “‘green with 

orange hairs,’” identifying the substance as marijuana because she had smoked the drug 

before. Burwell, ¶ 4. In reversing the conviction, we noted that:

[u]nlike in Dunn, no expert witness analyzed [her] description of the

substance; no additional lay witnesses corroborated her testimony; and she 

did not describe the effects of the substance, the duration of those effects, or 

the amount of the substance she ingested . . . . She did not describe the 

characteristic leaf or aroma of marijuana. She did not even testify that she 

got high from smoking it. 
17

Burwell, ¶ 18. 

¶34 While there was no testing of the substance McCoy allegedly gave L.B., the quality 

and quantity of the evidence about the substance presented at McCoy’s trial exceeds that 

found to be deficient in Henrich and Burwell. L.B.’s extensive direct testimony provided 

the jury with the time, place, context, individual identifications, activities, and effects of 

the alleged drug use, in support of the charge. He testified in detail about smoking meth 

with McCoy—for several months “at least two times a day” in McCoy’s living room with 

McCoy in his signature chair, loading McCoy’s clear pipe, and sharing the pipe between 

them. Brown and McCoy corroborated that this was exactly how McCoy smoked his meth. 

Further, Brown and McCoy corroborated L.B.’s testimony about McCoy’s health problems

and how McCoy would use meth to alleviate his medical symptoms. L.B. testified he 

would suggest they smoke together when McCoy was sick ̧ and that after smoking, McCoy 

would again be “normal.” McCoy admitted he used meth to self-medicate. L.B. described 

the physical characteristics of the drug as crystals or powder, and the method they used to 

smoke meth, testifying that McCoy called his pipe a “loke.” 

¶35 Every witness testified to L.B.’s consistent presence in McCoy’s residence and the 

common presence of meth in the home during the period covered by the charges. Every 

witness also testified that McCoy’s home was a place where drug users gathered, traded 

for drugs, used drugs, and hid from law enforcement. McCoy, Brown, and L.B. testified 

that McCoy was concerned about items being stolen from the home by visitors. McCoy 

and Brown admitted that, despite their concerns, they allowed L.B. to continue frequenting 
18

McCoy’s home. According to witnesses, meth was a dominant drug found in McCoy’s 

house, and it was his admitted drug of choice. Lopez did not testify as an expert witness

but had thirteen years of training and experience policing drugs, including being meth lab 

certified, and he testified about effects of meth use consistently with L.B.’s reported 

experiences, as well as McCoy’s and Brown’s observations of L.B. See Burwell, ¶ 8 (“the 

testimony of witnesses experienced in identifying dangerous drugs may provide sufficient 

evidence to support a conviction”); Wood, ¶¶ 39-41 (testimony of officers experienced in 

recognizing individuals under the influence of drugs regarding defendant’s behavior found 

to be sufficient for conviction). Testimony at trial revealed that L.B. turned to stealing to 

obtain money to buy drugs and was arrested for truancy at McCoy’s house, which a rational 

juror could infer were behaviors influenced by drug use. 

¶36 L.B. was the only witness to directly testify that McCoy provided him with meth, 

but the jury was properly instructed: “The evidence presented by one witness whom you 

believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact in this case.” See Hull, 158 Mont. at 18, 487 

P.2d at 1321; Kaske, ¶ 25. Much of L.B.’s testimony was corroborated by McCoy, and a

rational juror could choose to believe L.B.’s testimony over conflicting portions of 

McCoy’s testimony. The task of determining witness credibility and weighing testimony 

resides with the jury. See Dunn, 155 Mont. at 334, 472 P.2d at 297 (“In our view the 

conflicting testimony was evaluated by the jury which placed more weight and credence on 

the testimony of the state’s witnesses and by its verdict determined that the charge against 

the defendant had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
19

¶37 Much of the testimony was detailed and corroborated by more than one witness, 

including that McCoy and L.B. were meth users, meth was consistently present and smoked

in McCoy’s home, and that the users experienced its effects, explained generally by 

Detective Lopez. A rational juror could believe L.B.’s claim that McCoy provided him

meth. We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s 

determination that McCoy provided L.B. with meth in violation of § 45-9-101, MCA.

¶38 2. Did the District Court deny McCoy an opportunity for allocution at his 

sentencing hearing in violation of § 46-18-115, MCA, and his right to due process? 

¶39 Due process rights under the Montana and United States Constitutions apply at 

sentencing hearings. State v. Webber, 2019 MT 216, ¶ 10, 397 Mont. 239, 448 P.3d 1091 

(citing State v. Webb, 2005 MT 5, ¶ 18, 325 Mont. 317, 106 P.3d 52. “Under the due 

process guarantee, a defendant must be given an opportunity to explain, argue, and rebut 

‘any information that may lead to a deprivation of life, liberty, or property.’” Webber, ¶ 10 

(quoting Webb, ¶ 19). “[I]t is the careless or designed pronouncement of sentence on a 

foundation so extensively and materially false, which the prisoner had no opportunity to 

correct by services which counsel would provide, that renders the proceedings lacking 

in due process.” Webb, ¶ 19 (quoting State v. McLeod, 2002 MT 348, ¶ 19, 313 Mont. 358, 

61 P.3d 126) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “Specifically, the right of 

allocution ‘contemplates an opportunity for the defendant to bring mitigating 

circumstances to the attention of the court.’” Boardman v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523, 1526

(9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Sherman v. United States, 383 F.2d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 1967)). 
20

¶40 McCoy argues that the District Court violated the sentencing statutes and his right 

to due process by failing “to provide him an opportunity for allocution.” McCoy argues 

the District Court “had a statutory and constitutional duty to address [McCoy] personally. 

The court’s failure to do so renders [his] sentence illegal and unconstitutional.” McCoy

asks that his sentence be vacated, and a new sentencing hearing conducted before a new 

judge. The State argues McCoy failed to avail himself of the opportunity given at 

sentencing, the issue was not preserved and is therefore unreviewable, and he was not 

prejudiced in any way, given his provision of a “Defendant’s Statement” in his 

memorandum filed for the sentencing hearing. 

¶41 The State is correct that McCoy failed to preserve the issue, and even if we 

reviewed the matter as an issue of constitutional law to ensure McCoy’s substantial rights 

were not affected, see Mont. v. Abel, 2021 MT 293, ¶ 4, ___ Mont. ___, ___ P. 3d ___, we 

would conclude there was no error requiring reversal. Section 46-18-115(3), MCA, 

provides: 

[T]he court shall address the defendant personally to ascertain whether the 

defendant wishes to make a statement and to present any information in 

mitigation of punishment or reason why the defendant should not be 

sentenced. If the defendant wishes to make a statement, the court shall afford 

the defendant a reasonable opportunity to do so.

¶42 McCoy inaccurately characterizes the record by claiming the District Court failed 

to address him personally or did not allow him to make a personal statement to the court. 

The court asked counsel if McCoy wished to address the court, to which counsel answered, 

“I believe he would,” and the court said it would leave the timing of McCoy’s statement to 
21

counsel. After the parties’ presentations, the court extensively outlined its sentencing 

considerations, during which it engaged both parties with questions, and ultimately 

pronounced sentence. The court then asked each side if they had “any additional findings, 

conclusions, or order you’d have me make on this record today?,” to which both sides 

answered negatively. The court concluded the hearing by further addressing McCoy 

personally about his future success.

¶43 While it would have been beneficial for the District Court to affirmatively ask 

McCoy again if he still wanted to make a statement, we cannot conclude on this record that 

the court violated the statute or McCoy’s due process rights. The District Court asked and 

ascertained whether McCoy wanted to make a statement, and directed counsel to decide 

the timing of the statement, for which there were various, and thus reasonable, 

opportunities to do so during the hearing. Fortunately, McCoy’s counsel provided a 

sentencing memorandum with McCoy’s “Defendant’s Statement,” and made argument 

regarding factors mitigating the sentence, wherein he emphasized that responsibility rested 

primarily on Brown and L.B. He emphasized McCoy’s health concerns. The purpose of 

allocution, to provide “opportunity for the defendant to bring mitigating circumstances to 

the attention of the court,” was thus fulfilled in these ways. Boardman, 957 F.2d at 1526 

(quoting Sherman, 383 F.2d at 839).

¶44 Affirmed. 

/S/ JIM RICE
22

We concur: 

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

/S/ BETH BAKER

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA