DA18-0101INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANA2020MT116NSTATEOFMONTANA,PlaintiffandAppellee,v.SCOTTALANCOOK,DefendantandAppellant.FILEDMAY052020BowenGreenwoodClerkofSupremeCourtStateofMontanaAPPEALFROM:DistrictCourtoftheFirstJudicialDistrict,InandFortheCountyofLewisandClark,CauseNo.BDC2016-512HonorableMichaelF.McMahon,PresidingJudgeCOUNSELOFRECORD:ForAppellant:Filed:ChadWright,AppellateDefender,DannyTenenbaum,AssistantAppellateDefender,Helena,MontanaForAppellee:TimothyC.Fox,MontanaAttorneyGeneral,JonathanM.Krauss,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Helena,MontanaLeoJ.Gallagher,LewisandClarkCountyAttorney,AnnPenner,DeputyCountyAttorney,Helena,MontanaSubmittedonBriefs:April1,2020Decided:May5,2020Clerk05/05/2020Case Number: DA 18-0101ChiefJusticeMikeMcGrathdeliveredtheOpinionoftheCourt.¶1PursuanttoSectionI,Paragraph3(c),MontanaSupremeCourtInternalOperatingRules,thiscaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionandshallnotbecitedanddoesnotserveasprecedent.Itscasetitle,causenumber,anddispositionshallbeincludedinthisCourt'squarterlylistofnoncitablecasespublishedinthePacificReporterandMontanaReports.¶2ScottAlanCookappealsfollowingaconvictionforSexualAssault,afelony,inMontana'sFirstJudicialDistrictCourt.Weaffirm.¶3In2015,A.Y.,atthetimetwoyearsold,andtwoofhersiblings,wereremovedfromtheirparents'custodyandplacedintheprotectivecareoftheirgrandmother,AngelKramer,andherhusband,Scott"PapeCook,inHelena,Montana.'InNovember2016,whileKrarnerwasdrivingA.Y.tospeechtherapy,A.Y.madeastatementtoKramerthat"PapahasapinkpenislikeAries,2andthathetouched[rny]butt."A.Y.repeatedthestatementandthenmadehuffingsounds,consistentwithnoisesrnadeduringintercourse.KramerconfrontedCookabouttheincidentandnotifiedlawenforcement.CookwenttotheHelenaPoliceDepartmentandprovidedavoluntarystatement,recordedasavideointerview.CooktoldthepolicethatKramertoldhimthatA.Yhadsaidthathehada"bigICookdidnotdisputeatanytimethroughoutthecasewherehe,Kramer,orthechildrenlived.NoevidencewasadmittedattrialthatheorthevictimlivedanywhereotherthanHelena,Montana,duringthetimetheallegedabuseoccurred.TheDistrictCourtdeterminedbeforetrialthatcircumstantialevidenceestablishedCook'sopportunitytocommittheabuseduetothetimes"hewasorcouldhavebeenalonewithA.Y."2Arieswasthefamilydog.2pinkpenisandtouchedherbuttwithit."Cookdeniedanywrongdoingbutacknowledgedthat"threeyearoldsdon'tjustsay—somebodyputa—biglargepenisontheirbutt."TheHelenaPolicecontinuedtoinvestigatethecase,conductingasearchofCookandAngel'sresidenceinHelena.¶4OnNovember23,2016,theStatefiledanInformation,chargingCookwithSexualAssault,afelony,inviolationof§45-5-502(1)and(3),MCA.TheInforrnationallegedtheassaultoccurred"onoraboutduringtheapproximatetwo-yearperiodpriortoNovember8,2016...."OnFebruary8,2017,thecourtheldahearingontheState'srnotiontointroduceattrialA.Y.'shearsaystatement.Atthehearing,KrarnerconfirmedtothecourtthatA.Y.madetwostatementstoherinNovember2016:thefirst—that"Papa'sgotabigpenislikeAries.Big,pinkpenislikeAries."Afterthefirststatement,Kramersaidtherewasashortpause,andthenA.Y.said"[Papa]hasabigpinkpenisandtouchesmybuttwithit,"andmadehuffingnoises.ThecourtdeterrninedthatA.Y.'sstatementswereadmissibleunderMontana'sChildHearsaystatute,§46-16-220,MCA.¶5FromAugust7to11,2017,ajurytrialwasheld.Cook'sattorneyinformedthejuryduringopeningstatementsthat"thereasonwearehere,isthatAngelKramerclaimsthatsheheard[thevictim]say,'Papahasapinkpenis,andheputsitonmybutt.'"Cook'svideotestirnonyfrornthepolicestationwasalsoadmittedintoevidencewithoutobjection.AfterthecloseoftheState'scase-in-chief,thedefensemovedforadirectedverdictforinsufficientevidence,arguingthatthechildhearsaystatementdidnotprovideanyindicationthatA.Y.wasassaultedbyCook.ThecourtdeniedCook'smotion,3explaining"Ithinkwhatyou'rereallyarguingiscredibilitywithrespecttothegrandmother,andthatissueisrightsmackdabinthejury'shands."¶6Duringtrial,CookacknowledgedthatKramertoldhimthatA.Y.hadsaid"that[he]put[his]pinkpenisonherbutt[.]"Cookadmittedthathetoldthepolicethatthree-year-oldsdonotjustmakesomethinglikethatupanddidnotofferanexplanationastowhyA.Y.wouldsaysomethinglikethat.Inclosingargument,theStatemadeanumberofreferencestotheversionofA.Y.'sstatementasrecountedbyCook.Cook'sattorneydidnotobjecttothesestatements.3¶7Thejurydeliberatedforoveradayandahalf.Duringdeliberations,thejurysentbackanumberofnotestothecourt.Onenoteread,"afteralongdeliberation,andacouplevotes,weareatsixguiltyandsixnotguilty.Idon'tseethischangingsoon."TheStateresponded,"itsoundsliketheyarehung,Judge."TheDistrictCourtagreedandofferedacontinuinginstructionfrorntheMontanaPatternJuryInstructionstoaddressinstancesofahungjury.Cookobjected,arguingthatbygivingtheinstructionitseemedtosuggesttothejurythattheyneededtothinkaboutchangingtheirvote.ThecourtoverruledCook,stating"that'snottheCourt'sintentionandIdon'tthinkthat'stheintentionofthepatternjuryinstruction.Wehaveanotethatsaysattheend,don'tseethischangingsoon.'Idon'thaveanotesayingthisisnotgoingtochange."3CookdidobjecttootherstatementsmadebytheStateduringclosingargument,whicharenotonappealhere,thatsuchstatementswerenotinevidence.TheDistrictCourtoverruledtheobjection,explainingthat"thejuryisremindedthatitweighstheevidenceand,asIindicatedbefore,statementsmadebycounselarenotevidence."4¶8TheDistrictCourtthereafterprovidedthecontinuinginstructiontothejury.Thisinstructionstatedinpart,"Itisthetaskofthejurytodecidethecase.Youareneutraljudgesofthefacts.Itisyouandyoualonethatcandecidethiscause."Theinstructionfurtherstated,"Thisinstructionisnotrneanttocoerceorforceaverdict.Youshouldtakeasmuchtimeasneededinyourdeliberations."ThejuryfoundCookguiltyofsexualassaultofachild.ThecourtsentencedCookto60yearsintheMontanaStatePrisonwithnotimesuspended.Cookappeals,arguing:(1)thetrialcourtlackedjurisdictionoverthecase;(2)Cook'srighttoafairtrialwasviolatedbytheState'srepeatedmisstatementsofA.Y.'shearsaystatement;(3)Cook'scounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoobjecttothesemisstatements;and(4)thecourtirnproperlycoercedthejurybyissuingitscontinuinginstruction.¶9Atrialcourt'sdeterminationastowhetherithasjurisdictionisaconclusionoflawwhichwereviewdenovo.Stanleyv.Lemire,2006MT304,¶52,334Mont.489,148P.3d643.ThisCourtgenerallydoesnotaddressissuesofprosecutorialmisconductpertainingtoaprosecutor'sstatementsifthosestatementswerenotobjectedtoattrial.Statev.Ugalde,2013MT308,¶27,372Mont.234,311P.3d772.However,thisCourtmaydiscretionarilyreviewsuchclaimsonappealundertheplainerrordoctrine.Ugalde,¶27.Claimsofineffectiveassistanceofcounselaremixedquestionsoflawandfactsubjecttodenovoreview.Bacav.State,2008MT371,¶8,346Mont.474,197P.3d948.Wereviewadistrictcourt'sjuryinstructionsforanabuseofdiscretion.Statev.Tellegen,2013MT337,¶5,372Mont.454,314P.3d902.5¶10Cookarguesthatthecourtdidnothaveterritorialjurisdictiontohearthecasebecausethetrialrecordcontainsnoevidenceindicatingwheretheallegedassaultoccurred.Jurisdictionconcernsthecourt'sauthoritytoadjudicateaproceeding.CityofHelenav.Frankforter,2018MT193,¶18,392Mont.277,423P.3d581.ArticleVII,Section4(1),oftheMontanaConstitutionirnpartsoriginaljurisdictiononalldistrictcourtsforallcrirninalcasesamountingtoafelony.ApersonissubjecttoprosecutioninMontanaforanoffensecommitted"eitherwhollyorpartlywithinthestate[J"Section46-2-101(1)(a),MCA.Inacriminalproceeding,theprosecutionmustestablishthatthetrialcourthasjurisdictiontopresideoverthetrial.Frankforter,¶18.¶11Here,fromthetirneA.Y.begantolivewithCookandKrameruntilKramerreportedtheallegedabuse,itisundisputedthatCookandthevictimlivedinHelena.CookandKramer'shomewassubjecttoasearchbytheHelenaPoliceDepartmentinconnectionwiththeallegedcrime.CookalsoreportedtotheHelenaPoliceandprovidedavoluntarystatement.Infact,thereisnoinformationintherecordsuggestingCookorthevictimwereanywhereotherthanLewisandClarkCounty,Montana,throughoutthetimeperiodinwhichtheabusecouldhaveoccurred.TheDistrictCourthadjurisdictionandLewisandClarkCountywastheappropriateplacefortrial.¶12CookalsoarguesthattheStatecommittedprosecutorialmisconductamountingtoadueprocessviolationbyrepeatedlymisstatingthevictim'shearsaystatementtothejuryduringclosingargument.CookassertsthattheStaterepeatedlytoldthejurythatA.Y.toldKramerthat"Papahasapinkpenisandheputitonmybutt,"whenthecorrectstatement,recalledbyKramerduringthefirstdayoftrial,was"Papahasapinkpenislike6Aries,"andthathetouchedherbutt.CookfurtherarguesthathiscounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoobjecttoanyoftheState'smisstatements.¶13Indeterminingwhetherstatementsbytheprosecutionconstitutereversibleerror,weanalyzewhetherthestatementwasimproper,andifso,whethertheimproperstatementprejudicedthedefendant.Statev.Dobrowski,2016MT261,¶28,385Mont.179,382P.3d490.Theprosecution'spresentationoffalseevidenceamountstoadueprocessviolationifthecriminaldefendantcanprove:(1)thetestimonyorevidenceinquestionwasactuallyfalse,(2)theprosecutionkneworshouldhaveknownthatthetestimonyorevidencewasfalse,and(3)thefalsetestimonyorevidencewasmaterial.Statev.Wright,2011MT92,¶28,360Mont.246,253P.3d838.¶14TheState'srenditionofA.Y.'shearsaystatementduringclosingargumentwasnotprosecutorialmisconduct.Atthepretrialhearingonchildhearsaytestimony,KramerconfirmedtothecourtthatA.Y.madeastatementtotheeffectof"Papahasabigpinkpenisandtouchesinybuttwithit."BoththeStateandthedefensereferencedthisversionofKramer'saccountduringopeningstatements.Cook'svideotestimonyfromtheHelenaPoliceDepartmentreflectedastatementsimilartothatreferencedbytheStateinclosingargument.And,attrial,CookadrnittedthatthisversionwasthestatementthatA.Y.allegedlytoldKrainer.TheState'sreferencetooneversionofA.Y.'sstatementduringclosingargurnentwasnotamischaracterizationoftheevidence,amountingtoprosecutorialmisconduct.Moreover,CookhadanopportunitytopointouttheinconsistentrecollectionsofA.Y.'spurportedstatementduringclosingargumentbutdid7not.BecausethestatementsrnadebytheStateduringclosingargumentwerenotimproper,Cook'scounselwasnotineffectiveforfailingtoobjecttothesestatements.¶15Finally,CookarguesthattheDistrictCourt'scontinuinginstruction,andspecifically,thesingleline"youandyoualonecandecidethiscause,"wascoercivetothejuryandviolatedhisrighttoafairtrial.Criminaldefendantshaveaconstitutionalrighttoanuncoercedjuryverdict.Statev.Sweet,2018MT263,¶10,393Mont.202,429P.3d912."Ajuryinstructioniscoerciveifitdirectstheminorityofjurorstoreconsidertheirviewsinlightofthemajority,instructsthejurorsthattheyhavetoreachadecision,orpressuresthejurorsintoreturningaunanimousverdict."Statev.Santiago,2018MT13,¶9,390Mont.154,415P.3d972.Whileunduepressureisnotallowed,acourtmayprovideanAllen4instructiontoadeadlockedjuryasareminderthatthejurymust"considerthefactsofthecase,deliberatewithoneanother,andatternpttoreachaunanimousverdict."Santiago,¶10.¶16TheinstructionCookchallengesisvirtuallyidenticaltotherevisedinstructionfroinStatev.Norquay,2011MT34,359Mont.257,248P.3d817,andupheldinSantiagoandSweet.Wehavenotfound,nordowefindnow,thattheinstructioniscoercive,containslanguageinstructingminorityjurorstoreconsidertheirviewsinlightofthemajority,orrequiresthatajuryreachaverdict.SeeNorquay,¶37;Santiago,¶17;Sweet,¶13.Instead,theNorquayinstructionencouragesjurorstocollaboratewithoutresigningtheirconvictions,incoinpliancewithMontanalaw.Santiago,¶17;Sweet,4Allenv.UnitedStates,164U.S.492,17S.Ct.154(1896).8¶13.ThecontinuinginstructionadrninisteredbytheDistrictCourtwasnotcoercive,violatingCook'srighttoafairtrial.¶17WehavedeterminedtodecidethiscasepursuanttoSectionI,Paragraph3(c)ofourInternalOperatingRules,whichprovidesformemorandumopinions.IntheopinionoftheCourt,thecasepresentsaquestioncontrolledbysettledlaworbytheclearapplicationofapplicablestandardsofreview.¶18Affirmed.WeConcur:Justices9ChiefJusticeJusticeIngridGustafson,dissenting.¶19Idissentfromthemajority'sconclusionthattheinstructionchallengedbyCook,generallyknownasthe"dynamiteinstruction,"isnotcoercivebutratherencouragesjurorstocollaboratewithoutresigningtheirconvictionstoreachaverdict.¶20DespitethattheinstructionCookchallengesisvirtuallyidenticaltotherevisedinstructionfromStatev.Norquay,2011MT34,359Mont.257,248P.3d817,andthisCourt'sprecedenceinsubsequentlyupholdingtheinstructioninStatev.Santiago,2018MT13,390Mont.154,415P.3d972,Iwouldconclude,inthisinstance,theinstructionwascoerciveandmisstatedthejury'sobligation.Specifically,Iamtroubledbythelanguage,"Itisyouandyoualonethatcandecidethiscause."Thislanguageimpliesamisstatementoflaw—thatifthisjurydoesnotreachaverdict,noverdictcouldeverberenderedandretrialisnotpossible.Thisstatementdoesnotaccuratelyadvisethatintheeventthejuryisunabletoreachaunanimousverdict,amistrialwouldbedeclaredandthematterwouldberesetforanothertrial.¶21WhileIbelievetherearebetterwaysofdeterminingifadditionaldeliberationwillmakeitpossibleforthejurytoreachaverdict,ataminimum,thelanguage,"Itisyouandyoualonethatcandecidethiscause"shouldberemovedfromthedynamiteinstructionasaninaccuratestatementoflaw.10Justice