D A 0 8

- 0 3 6 6

I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U

R T O F T H E S T

A T E O F M O N T

A N A

2 0 1 0 M T 2 7

S T A T E O F M O N T

A N A

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l e e

,

v

.

G EN E R I C H A R D M E R E D I T H

,

D e f e n d a n t a n d A

p p e l l a n t

.

APPEAL FROM: District Cour t of the Eighth Judicial District,

I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f C a s c a

d e

, C a u s e N o

. C D C 2 0 0 6

- 3 9 2

H o n o r a b l e K e n n e t h R

. N e i l l

, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

R o b i n A

. M e g u i r e

, A t t o r

n e y a t L a w

, G r e a t F a l l s

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

H o n

. S t e v e B u l l o c k

, M o n t a n a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, M a r d e l l P l o y h a r

, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r

n e y G e n e r a l

, H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

J o h n P a r k e r

, C a s c a d e C o u n t

y A t t o r n e y

, S u s a n W e

b e r

, D e p u t y C o u

n t y

A t t o r n e y

, G r e a t F a l l s

, M o n t a n a

S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f

s : J u n e 1 7

, 2 0 0 9

D e c i d e d : F e b r

u a r y 9

, 2 0 1 0

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k February 9 20102

Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 T h i s i s a n a p p e a

l o f a j u d g m e n t o f c o n v

i c t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e E i g h t h

J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t

, C a s c a d e C o u n t y

, e n t e r e d a f t e r a j u r y t r i a l

, a d

j u d g i n g G e n e M e r e d i t h

g u i l t y o f t h e o f

f e n s e o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m

i c i d e

, a n d s e n t e n c i n g h i m t o l i f e i n p r i s o n w i t h o u

t

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e

. W e a f f i r m

.

¶ 2 M e r e d i t h r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s o n a p p e a l w h i c h w e h a v

e r e s t a t e d a s f

o l l o w s :

¶3 1

. D i d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n d e n y i n g M e r e d i t h ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s o n t h e b a s i s

t h a t t w o h a i r s a m

p l e s w e r e d e s t r o y e d d u r i n g t e s t i n g ?

¶ 4 2. Did the District Court err when it allowed the jury to hear testimony about a

knife that was missing from the kitc hen of Meredith’s landlord after the homicide?

¶ 5 3

. W a s M e r e d i t h d e n i e d e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l w h e n h i s c o u n s e l d i d n o t

o b j e c t t o t h e a

d m i s s i o n o f s t a t e m e n t s M e r e d i t h m a d e i n t h e p o l i c e i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m ?

Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 6 S h o r t l y b e f

o r e m i d n i g

h t o n J u l y 2 9

, 2 0 0 6

, t

h e G r e a t F a l l s P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t

r e c e i v e d a c a l l t h a t t

h e n a k e d b o d y o f a w o m a n h a d b e e n d i s c o v e r e d i n a n a l l e y n e a r t h e

L e i g l a n d A p a r t m e n t s i n d o w

n t o w n G r e a t F a l l s

. O f

f i c e r s r e s p o n d i n g t o t

h e c a l l

d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e w o m a n

, w

h o w a s l a t e r i d e n t i f

i e d a s R o s e T o r r e s

, h a d b e e n s t a b b e d

n u m e r o u s t i m e s a n d t h a t h e r t h r o a t h a d b e e n c

u t s u p e r f i c i a l l y

.

¶ 7 The call r e p o r

t i n g t h e d i s c o v

e r y o f T o r r e s ’ b o d y h a d c o m e f r o m L a w r e n c e

N e l l o n s

, t

h e m a n a g e r o f t h e a p a r t m e n t c o m

p l e x

. H e t o l d t h e o f

f i c e r s r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e

s c e n e t h a t t w o g

i r l s h a d b e e n w a l k i n g t h r o u g h t h e a l l e y w

h e n t h e y n o t i c e d t

h e b o d y

. T h e

g i r l s r e p o r t e d t h e i r d i s c o v e r y t o N e l l o n s w

h o w a s t h e l a

n d l o r d o f o n e o f t h e g

i r l s

.3

N e l l o n s c o n t a c t e d a

n o t h e r t e n a

n t

, R o g e r K r i p p n e r

, a n d a s k e d t o b o r r o w a f l a s h l i g h t

.

N e l l o n s a n d K

r i p p n e r t h e n w e n t o u t s i d e t o g e t h e r t o l o o k f

o r t h e body. They discovered it

in the alley next to a dumpster.

¶ 8 N e l l o n s a

n d K r i p p n e r l a t e r t e s t i f

i e d t h a t w

h i l e t h e y w e r e i n t

h e a l l e y w a i t i n g f

o r

t h e p o l i c e

, t

h e y o b s e r v

e d a b l u e v

a n w i t h w

h i t e d o o r s d r i v i n g t h r o u g h t h e a l l e y w i t h i t s

l i g h t s o f f

. T h e v a n s t o p p e d a n d t h e m a l e d r i v e r r e p e a t e d l y a s k e d t h e t w o m e n i f t h e y h a d

s e e n h i s d o g

. T h e d r i v

e r t h e n e x i t e d t

h e v a n a n d

, i n s t e a d o f w a l k i n g t o w a r d N e l l o n s a n d

Krip pner, he walked towards T o r r e s ’ b o d y a n d t h e d u m p s t e r w h e r e a p l a s t i c b a g w i t h

b l o o d o n i t w a s l a t e r f

o u n d

. W h e n N e l l o n s a n d K

r i p p n e r t o l d t

h e d r i v e r t h a t h e s h o u l d

n o t t o u c h t h e d

u m p s t e r

, t h e d r i v

e r r e p l i e d t h a t h e h a

d a l r e a d y t o u c h e d i t

. N e l l o n s a n d

K r i p p n e r a l s o t o l d t h e d r i v e r t h a t h e s h o u l d n o t l e a v e because it was a crime scene , but

t h e d r i v e r g o t b a c k i n t h e v

a n a n d d r o v

e a w a y

. T h i n k i n g t h a t t h e d r i v e r ’ s a c t i o n s w e r e

s u s p i c i o u s

, N e l l o n s a n d K r i p p n e r g a v e o f f i c e r s a p h y s i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e v a n a n d i t s

driver. Krippner identified Meredith from a photo lineup as the driver of the van.

¶ 9 O n J

u l y 3 0

, 2 0 0 6

, t

h e p o l i c e r e c e i v e d i n f

o r m a t i o n t h a

t M e r e d i t h o w n e d a 1 9 8 6

A e r o s t a r v

a n s i m i l a r t o t h e o n e d e s c r i b e d b y N e l l o n s a n d K r i p p n e r

. T h e p o l i c e a l s o

l e a r n e d t h a t M e r e d i t

h w a s r e n t i n g a r o o m f

r o m H e l e n H a l c o

. U

nable to locate Meredith

at Halco’s, two officers went to the residence of Mered ith’s girlfriend, Debra Bailey.

Once there, the officers o bserved Meredith’s van parked in the driveway.

¶ 1 0 The office rs later testified that w hen the y knocked on Bailey’s door, she

immediately came outside. She was shaking and appeared to be in shock. She told the

offic ers, “Oh, thank God you’re here

. D o n ’ t l i e t o m e

, t e l l m e t h e t r u t h

, d i d s o m e b o d y4

get stabbed last n i g

h t ? D i d a l a d y g

e t k i l l e d ? ” W

h e n t h e o f

f i c e r s a s k e d h e r w

h y s h e

w o u l d s a y t h a t

, s h e e x

p l a i n e d t h a

t M e r e d i t h w a s i n s i d e h e r h o m e a n d t h a t h e h a d j u s t t o l d

h e r t h a t h e h a d k i l l e d s o m e o n e t h e p r e v i o u s n i g h t

. W h i l e t h e o f

f i c e r s w e r e t a l k i n g t o

B a i l e y

, M e r e d i t h c a m e o u t s i d e a n d s a t d o w n o n t h e p o r c h t o s m o k e a c i g a r e t t e

. The

o fficers took Meredith into custody.

¶ 1 1 A t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n

, M e r e d i t h w a s p l a c e d i n a n i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m

. W

h i l e s i t t i n g

a l o n e i n t h e r o o m p r i o r t o b e i n g i n t e r v i e w e d

, Meredith stated , “T hey got me. By wha t I

said to Debby, they got me. How did they find my van so quickly?”

¶ 1 2 D u r i n g t h e s u b s e q u e n t i n t e r v

i e w b y D e t e c t i v

e M c D e r m o t t

, M e r e d i t h a d m i t t e d t h a t

h e h a d m e t T o r r e s o n t

h e n i g h t i n q u e s t i o n a n d t

h a t h e h a d w a l k e d w i t h h e r t o a l o c a l b a r

w h i l e p u s h i n g h i s b i c y c l e

, b u t h e d e n i e d h a v i n g a n y t h i n g t o d o w i t h h e r d e a

t h

. M e r e d i t

h

a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t h e a n d T o r r e s h a d a r g

u e d

, b u t h e c l a i m e d t h a

t t h e y h a d p a r

t e d w a y s

a f t e r t h e y l e f

t t h e b a r

. A c c o r d i n g t o M e r e d i t h

, h e w e n t h o m e

, b u

t l a t e r left his house and

w a l k e d o v

e r t o B a i l e y ’ s t o g

e t h i s v a n s o t h a t h e c o u l d d r i v

e t o t h e s t o r e t o g

e t m o r e b e e r

.

H e c l a i m e d t h a t h e w a s d r i v i n g d o w n t h e a l l e y t o a v

o i d p o l i c e b e c a u s e t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n o n

h i s v e h i c l e h a d e x

p i r e d a n d b e c a u s e h e w a s i n t o x i c a t e d

. H e s t a t e d t h a t h e s a w t w o m e n

i n t h e a l l e y w i t h a f

l a s h l i g h t

. H e a l s o s t a t e d t

h a t h e did go over to the dumpster and move

a bag with blood on it, but he did not have any explanation for why he did so.

¶ 1 3 P r i o r t o t h i s i n t e r v i e w

, i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t

h e m u r d e r w e a p o n h a d n o t b e e n f o u n d

h a d n o t b e e

n r e l e a s e d t o t h e m e d i a

. N e v e r t h e l e s s

, d u r i n g t h e interview, Meredith told the

o f f i c e r s

, “ Y o u d o n ’ t h a v

e n o m u r d e r w e a p o n

. Y o u d o n ’ t h a v e n o t h i n g

. ”5

¶ 1 4 A t s o m e p o i n t d u r i n g t h i s i n t e r v i e w

, D e t e c t i v

e M c D e r m o t t n o t i c e d s t a i n s o n t h e

s a n d a l s M e r e d i t h w a s w e a r i n g

, s o M c D e r m o t t h a d M e r e d i t h r e m o v e t h e m f o r t e s t i n g

.

A f t e r D e t e c t i v

e M c D e r m o t t l e f

t t o p l a c e t h e s a n d a

l s i n t o e v i d e n c e

, M e r e d i t h

, w h o o n c e

again was alone in the room, stated, “Yeah, you know what? They might find blood on

those. I should have gotten rid of them. That’s the second mistake I made.”

¶ 1 5 I n a s e a r c h o f M e r e d i t h ’ s r e s i d e n c e

, o f f i c e r s l o c a t e d a s h i r t w i t h p o s s i b l e b l o o d

s t a i n s

. O f

f i c e r s a l s o l o c a t e d s p o t s t h e y b e l i e v e d t o b e b l o o d o n a d o o r l o c k

, a w a s h i n g

machine, and Meredith’s bicycle. The plastic bag with blood on it was also retrieved

f rom the dumpster near Torres ’ b o d y

. A l l o f t h e s e i t e m s

, i n c l u d i n g M e r e d i t h ’ s s a n d a l s

,

w e r e t e s t e d b y t h e M o n t a n a S t a t e C r i m e L a b

. T h e t e s t i n g r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e s p o t s o n t

h e

b i k e

, d o o r l o c k a n d w a s h i n g m a c h i n e w e r e n o t b l o o d

. H o w e v e r

, t h e t e s t i n g a l s o r e v

e a l e d

t h a t t h e s p o t s o n t

h e s h i r t

, s a n d a l s a n d p l a s t i c b a g w e r e b l o o d a n d t h a t t h e b l o od was

consistent with Torres ’ DNA profile

.

¶ 1 6 Meredith was charged with deli berate h om icide in violation of § 45

- 5

- 102, MCA.

A f t e r M e r e d i t h ’ s a r r e s t

, D r

. V i g i n i a H i l l

, a p s y c h i a t r i s t a t t h e M o n t a n a S t a t e H o s p i t a l

,

e v a l u a t e d M e r e d i t

h

. D r

. H i l l d i a g

n o s e d M e r e d i t h w i t h s c h i z o a f f e c t i v e d i s o r d e r

.

However, Dr. Hill explained at trial that a person with schizoaffective disorder can

knowingly and purposely commit homicide.

¶ 1 7 A l t h o u g

h D r

. H i l l c o n c l u d e d t h a t M e r e d i t h d i d h a v e a s e r i o u s m e n t a l i l l n e s s

, s h e

a l s o o b s e r v

e d t h a t h e h a

d a t e n d e n c y t o o v

e r r e p o r t h i s s y m

p t o m s

. M e r e d i t h c l a i m e d t o

have an alternate personality, yet Dr. Hill noted that Meredith did not have a history of

e x p e r i e n c i n g a n a l t e r n a t e p e r s o n a l i t y a n d t h a

t i t w a s “ h i g

h l y u n l i k e l y ” t h a t h e h a d6

s u d d e n l y d e v

e l o p e d o n e a t t

h e s a m e t i m e h e w a s b e i n g i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r h o m i c i d e

.

D r

. H i l l t e s t i f

i e d t h a t M e r e d i t h a p p e a r e d t o g e t t h e i d e a o f a n a l t e r n a t e p e r s o n a l i t y f r o m

the officers who had interviewed him.

¶ 1 8 T r i a l w a s h e l d A

p r i l 2 8

, 2 0 0 8

, t h r

o u g h M a y 2

, 2 0 0 8

. T h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t

o f g u i l t y a n d M e r e d i t h w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y s e n t e n c e d t o l i f

e i n p r i s o n w i t h o u t t

h e

p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e

. M e r e d i t h n o w a p p e a l s f r o m h i s c o n v i c t i o n

. A d d i t i o n a l f a c t s w i l l b e

i n c l u d e d w

h e r e n e c e s s a r y

.

I s s u e 1

.

¶ 1 9 D i d t h e D i s t

r i c t C o u r t e r r i n d e n y i n g M e r e d i t h ’ s m o t i o n t o d

i s m i s s o n t h e b a s i s

t h a t t w o h a i r s a m

p l e s w e r e d e s t r o y e d d u r i n g t e s t i n g ?

¶ 2 0 Two hairs were discovered o n T o r r e s ’ n a k e d b o d y

, o n e o n h e r l e f t t h i g h a n d o n e i n

h e r r i g h t h a n d

. B o t h h a i r s w e r e s e n t t o t h e F B I l a b f

o r m i t o c h o n d r i a l D N A a n a l y s i s i n

M a y 2 0 0 7

. I

n a r e p o r t d a t e d M a r c h 2 8

, 2 0 0 8

, t h e F B I l a b i n d i c a t e d t h a t w h i l e T o r r e s

c o u l d n o t b e e x c l u d e d a s t h e s o u r c e o f t h e h a i r l o c a t e d i n h e r h a n d

, M e r e d i t

h w a s n o t t

h e

s o u r c e o f t h a t h a i r

. T h e r e p o r t a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a

t t h e h a i r o n T o r r e s ’ t h i g h h a d

i n s u f f i c i e n t D N A f

o r t e s t i n g

. B o t h h a i r s w e r e c o m p l e t e l y c o n s u m e d d u r i n g t h e t e s t i n g

process.

¶ 2 1 On April 18, 2008, Meredith’s trial counsel filed a combined motion seeking a

dismissal on the basis that the State destroyed crucial evidence and seeking a continuance

because of the State’s dilatory di s c l o s u r e o f t h e F B I r e p o r t

. A h e a r i n g o n M e r e d i t h ’ s

m o t i o n w a s h e l d o n A

p r i l 2 2

, 2 0 0 8

, a

t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f w

h i c h t h e c o u r

t d e n i e d t h e7

motion on the grounds that Meredith had not established the materiality of the evidence

or any bad faith on the part of the State.

¶ 2 2 O n a p p e a l

, M e r e d i t h c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s r i g

h t t o a f a i r t r i a l w a s p r e

j u d i c e d w

h e n t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t f

a i l e d t o g r a n t h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e d e s t r o y e d p o t e n

t i a l l y

e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e d e f

e n s e h a d a

n o p p o r t u n i t y t o t e s t i t

. M e r e d i t h m a i n t a i n s

t h a t

, e v e n i f t h e r e w a s n o t a s u f f i c i e n t a m o u n t o f h a i r f

o r b o t h t h e S t a

t e a n d d e f

e n s e t o

t e s t

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o u l d h a v e : ( a ) p e r m i t t e d a d e f

e n s e e x p e r t t o e x a m

i n e t h e h a i r s

p r i o r t o a n y m i t o c h o n d r i a l D N A t e s t i n g i n o r d e r t o p e r f o r m a m i c r o s c o p i c a n a l y s i s o f t h e

h a i r ; ( b ) o r d e r e d a n i n d e p e n d e n t l a b t o p e r f o r m t h e m

i t o c h o n d r i a l D N A t e s t i n g ; o r ( c )

permitted the defense to have its own expert observe the testing process. Meredith argues

t h a t t h e S t a t e ’ s f

a i l u r e t o n o t i f

y M e r e d i t h o f i t s i n t e n t t o d e s t r o y t h e h a i r e v

i d e n c e

,

w h e t h e r p u r

p o s e f u l o r n o t

, p r e c l u d e d a

n y o f t h e s e t

h i n g s f r o m t a k i n g p l a c e

.

¶ 2 3 The State contends, on the other hand, that the hairs were not exculpatory, thus

Meredith’s due process rights were not violated. Th e State also contends that in the nine

months that the hairs were in the State’s possession, Meredith never filed a motion to

allow his own experts to test them.

¶ 2 4 This Court reviews the denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case de novo to

determine w

h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w a r e c o r r e c t

. S t a t e v

. S a m p l e s

,

2 0 0 8 M T 4 1 6

, ¶ 1 3

, 3 4 7 M o n t

. 2 9 2

, 1 9 8 P

. 3 d 8 0 3 ; State v. Howard , 2008 MT 173, ¶ 8,

343 Mont. 378, 184 P.3d 344.

¶ 2 5 A c r i m

i n a l d e f e n d a n t h a s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o o b t a i n e x c u l p a

t o r y e v i d e n c e a n d

a d e n i a l o f t h i s r i g

h t i s a v i o l a t i o n o f d u e p r o c e s s

. State v. Belgarde

, 1 9 9 8 M T 1 5 2

, ¶ 1 6

,8

2 8 9 M o n t

. 2 8 7

, 9 6 2 P

. 2 d 5 7 1 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. S a d o w s k i

, 2 4 7 M o n t

. 6 3

, 7 9

, 8 0 5 P

. 2 d 5 3 7

,

5 4 6 ( 1 9 9 1 ) o v e

r r u l e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d

s b y S t a t e v

. A y e r s , 2003 MT 114, 315 Mont. 395,

68 P.3d 768 ). “Exculpatory evidence is evidence that ‘[w]ould have tended to clear the

a c c u s e d o f g

u i l t

, t o v i t i a t e a c o n v i c t i o n

. ’ ” State v. Duncan

, 2 0 0 8 M T 1 4 8

, ¶ 1 7

, 3 4 3

M o n t

. 2 2 0

, 1 8 3 P

. 3 d 1 1 1 ( q u o t i n g Belgarde

, ¶ 1 6 )

. T o p r e v a i l o n a d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m

, a

d e f e n d a n t m u s t p r o v e t h a t t h e S t a t e n e g

l i g e n t l y s u p p r e s s e d e v

i d e n c e t h a t w a s e x c u l p a t o r y

a n d , therefore, vital to the defense. Duncan

, ¶ 17.

¶ 2 6 I n a d d i t i o n

, t h i s C o u r

t h a s p r e v i o u s l y d e t e r m

i n e d t h a t

w h e n t h e S t a t e

, d u e t o n e g l i g e n c e

, l o s s

, r e p l a c e m e n t o r d e s t r u c t i o n

, i s

u n a b l e t o p r o d u c e c e r t a i n p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f t

h e c a s e

,

r e v e r s a l o f a c o n v i c t i o n i s n o t n e c e s s a r y w h e r e t h e a c t u a

l o b j e c t s w e r e n o t

v i t a l t o t h e d e f

e n s e

, w e r e n o t e x c u l p a

t o r y i n n a t

u r e

, a n d t h e r e s u l t w o u l d

n o t h a v e b e e n a f f e c t e d b y t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n

.

S t a t e v

. H

a l t e r

, 2 3 8 M o n

t

. 4 0 8

, 4 1 2

, 7 7 7 P

. 2 d 1 3 1 3

, 1 3 1 6 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. C r a i g

,

1 6 9 M o n t

. 1 5 0

, 5 4 5 P

. 2 d 6 4 9 ( 1 9 7 6 ) )

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, t h e e x c u l p a t o r y n a t u r e o f t h e

e v i d e n c e m u s t h a v e b e e n a p p a r e n t b e f

o r e t h e e v i d e n c e w a s d e s t r o y e d

. Halter , 238 Mont.

at 412, 777 P.2d at 1316.

¶ 2 7 I n H a l t e r , this Court held that the district court had correctly granted the

d e f e n d a n t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s b e c a u s e t h e b u l l t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d a l l e g e d l y s t o l e n

a n d i l l e g a l l y b r a n d e d h a

d b e e n d e s t r o y e d

. Id. W i t h o u t t h e b u l l ’ s h i d e

, t h e d e f

e n d a n t w a s

u n a b l e t o d e v

e l o p e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h e h a d n o t i l l e g

a l l y b r a n d e d t h e b u l l

. I d

.

H a l t e r i s d i s t i n g

u i s h a b l e f

r o m t h e i n s t a n t c a s e

, h o w e v e r

, b e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e d e s t r o y e d

i n Halter w a s c r i t i c a l t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s d e f

e n s e

, w h e r e a s t h e h a i r s t h a t w e r e d e s t r o y e d i n

t h i s c a s e w e r e n o t

.9

¶ 2 8 C ontrary to Meredith’s contention that “ there can be no question ” t h a t t h e h a i r s

h a d e x c u l p a

t o r y v a l u e t o h i m

, M e r e d i t h f a i l e d t o s h o w t h a

t t h e y w e r e

, in fact

,

exculpatory. In his brief on appeal, Meredith claimed that “at least one of the hair

s a m p l e s c o u l d n o t b e s a i d t o b e l o n g t o e i t h e r t h e v i c t i m o r M e r e d i t h ” r a i s i n g t h e

p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s o m e o n e e l s e c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e

. H o w e v e r

, t h a t i s n o t w h a t t h e F B I l a b

r e p o r t i n d i c a t e d

. R a

t h e r

, i t i n d i c a t e d t h a

t t h e r e w a s n o t e

n o u g h D N A o n o n e o f t h e h a i r s

f o r t e s t i n g a n d t h a t

, b e c a u s e t h e D N A s e q u e n c e s f o r t h e o t h e r h a i r a n d t

h e b l o o d s a m

p l e

taken from Torres were the same, Torres co uld not be excluded as the source of that hair.

¶ 2 9 N e i t h e r h a i r s a m

p l e c o n t a i n e d a r o o t o r a n y o t h e r s o u r c e o f n u c l e a r D N A

, t h u s

,

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f

o r e n s i c e x

p e r t s

, t h e o n l y t e s t t h a t c o u l d b e p e r f o r m e d o n t

h e h a i r

s a m p l e s w a s a m i t o c h o n d r i a l D N A t e s t

. A l i c e A m m e n s w i t h t h e S t a t e C r i m e L a b

t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e c o u l d n o t c o n c l u d e f r o m t h e F B I l a b r e p o r t o f t h e m i t o c h o n d r i a l D N A

t e s t i n g o f t h e h a i r s w

h e t h e r t h e y b e l o n g

e d t o T o r r e s o r M e r e d i t h

, s h e c o u l d o n l y t e s t i f y

w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e s i m i l a r

. S h e f u r t h e r t e s t i f

i ed: “That’s all you can say with

m i t o c h o n d r i a l h a i r c o m

p a r i s o n s

. ” I

n o t h e r w o r

d s

, m i t o c h o n d r i a l D N A t e s t i n g c a n n o t

p r o v e t h a t a p e r s o n i s t h e s o u r c e o f t h e h a i r

, i t c a n o n l y e x c l u d e a n i n d i v i d u a l a s t h e

source.

¶ 3 0 W e also disagree with Meredith’s contenti on that the exculpatory value of the

evidence was apparent at the outset

. Meredith claimed that “if defense testing of the hair

identified another donor, this evidence would have been vital to Meredith’s defense and

would have likely changed the outcome o f t h e t r i a l

. ” M e r e d i t h a l s o c l a i m e d t h a t t h e h a i r s10

could provide evidence that someone else had close contact with Torres “at the time of

the crime.”

¶ 3 1 Even assuming that both hair s would have tested negative for both Meredith’s and

T o r r e s ’ D N A

, t h i s e v i d e n c e w o u l d n o t h a v e e x o n e r a t e d M e r e d i t

h

. F i r s t

, t h e h a i r s c o u l d

h a v e c o m e f r o m a n y n u m

b e r o f s o u r c e s e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r T o r r e s w a s k i l l e d a s h e r

b o d y w a s f

o u n d n a k e d i n a n a l l e y b y a d u m p s t e r . Second, there is no way to know when

the hairs were depos ited on Torres’ body since several people had been near the body

prior to the arrival of law enforcement officers.

¶ 3 2 M o r e o v

e r

, t h e r e w a s s u f

f i c i e n t o t h e r e v

i d e n c e l i n k i n g M e r e d i t h t o t h e c r i m e

,

i n c l u d i n g t h e b l o o d s t a i n s on Meredith’s shirt and sandals that tested positive for Torres’

DNA , along with M e r e d i t h ’ s i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s t o h i s g i r l f r i e n d a n d o t h e r s

. S i n c e

t h e h a i r e v i d e n c e h a d n o p o t e n t i a l t o c l e a r M e r e d i t h o f g u i l t

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a

t M e r e d i t h

was not deprived of due process by the destruction of the hairs.

¶ 3 3 W e a l s o d e t e r m i n e h e r e t h a t t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e h a i r s a m

p l e s w a s n o t t h e

i n t e n t i o n a l o r d e l i b e r a t e p u r p o s e o f t h e S t a t e

, n o r w a s t h e S t a t e n e g l i g e n t i n p r e s e r v

i n g

n e c e s s a r y e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e

. At the April 22, 2008 hearing on Meredi t h ’ s M o t i o n t o

D i s m i s s

, D e t e c t i v e M c D e r m o t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t M e r e d i t

h w a s s e n t a l e t t e r i n A

u g u s t 2 0 0 7

t h a t t h e h a i r s w e r e b e i n g s e n t t o t h e F B I l a b f o r t e s t i n g

. M o r e o v

e r

, t h e S t a t e C r i m e L a b

h e l d t h e h a i r s f o r o v e r n i n e m o n t h s b e f

o r e t h e y w e r e s e n t t o t h e F B I l a b f o r t e s t i n g

, a n d

t h e F B I l a b h e l d t h e h a i r s f o r a n o t h e r n i n e m o n

t h s b e f o r e t e s t i n g

. I

n a l l t h a t t i m e

,

M e r e d i t h n e v

e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o p r e s e r v e t h e h a i r s o r t o a l l o w h i s o w n e x p e r t s t o t e s t11

them. Consequently, Meredith’s own lack of due diligence contributed to the prejudice

he claims he suffered.

¶ 3 4 A c c o r d i n g

l y

, w e h o l d t h a

t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n d e n y i n g M e r e d i t h ’ s

m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

.

Issue 2.

¶ 3 5 Did the District Court err when it allowed the jury to hear testimony about a knife

that was mis s i n g f

r o m t h e k i t c h e n o f M e r e d i t h ’ s l a n d l o r d a f t e r t h e h o m i c i d e ?

¶ 3 6 During the investigation, law enforcement officers spoke wit h several witnesses.

One of tho se witnesses was Mark Halco, the son of Meredith’s landlord. He informed

the officers that a kni f

e h a d b e e n m

i s s i n g f r o m h i s m o t h e r ’ s k i t c h e n s i n c e t h e t i m e o f t h e

h o m i c i d e

. P r i o r t o t r i a l

, M e r e d i t h f i l e d a m o t i o n i n l i m

i n e s e e k i n g t o e x c l u d e a n y

e v i d e n c e a b o u t a n y s p e c i f

i c k n i f e b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e h a d n o t l o c a t e d t h e k n i f e t h a t w a s

u s e d i n t h e h o m i c i d e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

.

¶ 3 7 I n h i s o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t a t t r i a l

, t h e p r o s e c u t o r p o i n t e d o u t t h a t H a l c o w o u l d

t e s t i f y r e g a r d i n g t h e m

i s s i n g k n i f e

. M e r e d i t h o b

j e c t e d a r g

u i n g t h a t e v i d e n c e a b o u

t t h e

k n i f e w a s i n a d m

i s s i b l e b e c a u s e t h e p r e

j u d i c e o u t w e i g h e d t h e p r o b a t i v

e v a l u e

. A c c o r d i n g

t o M e r e d i t h

, e v

i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e m i s s i n g k n i f e h a d n o p r o b a t i v

e v a l u e b e c a u s e t h e

S t a t e c o u l d n o t p r o v

e t h a t i t w a s the weapon used in the crime. The court overruled

Meredith’s objection.

¶ 3 8 During trial, Halc o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e w a s a t h i s m o t h e r ’ s h o m e a c o u p l e d a y s a f

t e r

t h e h o m i c i d e a n d h e n o t i c e d t h a t a l a r g e k n i f e w a s m i s s i n g f

r o m h e r k i t c h e n

. H e s t a t e d

t h a t h e n o t i c e d t

h e a b s e n c e o f t h e k

n i f e b e c a u s e h i s m o t h e r f

r e q u e n t l y u s e d t h a t k

n i f e

, i t12

n o r m a l l y w a s s t o r e d i n a k n i f e h o l d e r o n t

h e c o u n t e r

, a n d i t h a d n o t b e e n s e e n s i n c e t

h e

h o m i c i d e

. H a l c o f

u r t h e r t e s t i f

i e d t h a t t h e k

n i f e w a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w e l v e i n c h e s l o n g

a n d h a d a n e i g h t

- i n c h b l a

d e

.

¶ 3 9 Meredith objected to this testimony on the grounds that there was no showing

when the knife Halco referred to disappeared. The court overruled Meredith’s objection

noting that counsel could cross examine on that point.

¶ 4 0 The State ’s next witness, Dr. Kemp, the forensic pathologist who performed the

autopsy on Torres’ body

, p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y a b o u

t T o r r e s ’ w o u n d s

. D r

. K e m p t e s t i f i e d

t h a t T o r r e s h a d f

o u r s t a b w o u n d s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e c u t a c r o s s h e r n e c k

, a n d t h a t t h e

maximum depth of the stab wounds was seven inches.

¶ 4 1 O n a p p e a l

, M e r e d i t h a s s e r t s t h a t t h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e c o n n e c t i n g t h e m i s s i n g

k n i f e t o t h e o b j e c t t h a t k i l l e d T o r r e s

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, M e r e d i t h a r g

u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t

Court should not have permitted evidence of the missing knife to be heard by the jury as

it was irrelevant, misleading and extremely preju dicial.

¶ 4 2 A d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g o n a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e i s a n e v

i d e n t i a r y r

u l i n g a n d i s

,

t h e r e f o r e

, r e v i e w e d f o r a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

. State v. Snell

, 2 0 0 4 M T 3 3 4

, ¶ 1 7

, 3 2 4

M o n t

. 1 7 3

, 1 0 3 P

. 3 d 5 0 3

. W e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d t h a t

[ t ] h e p u r p o s e o f a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e i s t o p r e v

e n t t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f

e v i d e n c e w

h i c h i s i r r e l e v

a n t

, i m m a t e r i a l

, o r u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c i a l

. A c c o r d i n g

l y

, t h e a u t h o r i t y t o g

r a n t o r d e n y a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e r e s t s i n t h e

i n h e r e n t p o w e r o f t h e c o u r t t o a d m i t o r e x c l u d e e v

i d e n c e a n d t o t a k e s u c h

p r e c a u t i o n s a s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o a f f o r d a f a i r t r i a l f o r a l l p a r t i e s

.13

State v. Krause

, 2 0 0 2 M T 6 3

, ¶ 3 2

, 3 0 9 M o n t

. 1 7 4

, 4 4 P

. 3 d 4 9 3 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s

o m i t t e d ) ( c i t i n g Hulse v. State, Dept. of Justice

, 1 9 9 8 M T 1 0 8

, ¶ 1 5

, 2 8 9 M o n t

. 1

, 9 6 1

P

. 2 d 7 5 ; C

i t y o f H e l e n a v

. L e w i s , 260 Mont. 421, 425

- 26, 860 P.2d 698, 700 (1993)).

¶ 4 3 Moreover, a district court has broad discretion to determine whether evidence is

r e l e v a n t a n d a

d m i s s i b l e

, a n d w e w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n a l o w e r c o u r t ’ s e v i d e n t i a r y r

u l i n g

u n l e s s t h e c o u r

t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n

. S t a t e v

. D a m o n , 2005 MT 2 1 8

, ¶ 1 2

, 3 2 8 M o n t

.

2 7 6

, 1 1 9 P

. 3 d 1 1 9 4 ; State v. MacKinnon , 1998 MT 78, ¶ 12, 288 Mont. 329, 957 P.2d 23.

E v i d e n c e i s r e l e v

a n t i f i t h a s “ a n y t e n d e n c y t o m a k e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n y f a c t t h a t i s o f

c o n s e q u e n c e t o t h e d e t e r m

i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n m o r e p r o b a b l e o r l e s s p r o b a

b l e t h a n i t

w o u l d b e w i t h o u t t

h e e v i d e n c e

. ” M

. R

. E v i d

. 4 0 1 ; State v. Dunning

, 2 0 0 8 M T 4 2 7

, ¶ 2 4

,

3 4 7 M o n t

. 4 4 3

, 1 9 8 P

. 3 d 8 2 8

. E v i d e n c e t h a t i s r e l e v a n t m a y b e e x c l u d e d

, h o w e v e r

, i f i t s

p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d b y t h e d a n g

e r o f u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e

, c o n f

u s i o n

o f t h e i s s u e s

, o r m

i s l e a d i n g t h e j u r y

. M

. R

. E v i d

. 4 0 3 ; Dunning , ¶ 24.

¶ 4 4 Here, we conclude that Halc o’s testimony regarding the missing knife was

relevant becau se the jury could logically infer that the missing knife was used to kill

Torres. Dr. Kemp’s testimony showed that Torres’ wound s were created with a knife

having a blade a t least seven inches long. Halc o’s testimony established that Meredith

had access to such a knife.

¶ 4 5 We also hold that the evidence regarding the missing knife was not unfairly

prejudicial to Meredith

. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it “ ‘arouses the jury’s

hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value

. ’ ” State v.

Schauf

, 2 0 0 9 M T 2 8 1

, ¶ 4 1

, 3 5 2 M o n t

. 1 8 6

, 2 1 6 P

. 3 d 7 4 0 ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v

. B i e b e r

, 2 0 0 714

MT 262, ¶ 59, 339 Mont. 309, 170 P.3d 444). Moreover, “Montana law clearly permits a

jury to draw inferences from circumstantial evidence presented at tri a l

. ” S t a t e v

. L a n d

i s

,

2 0 0 2 M T 4 5

, ¶ 3 2

, 3 0 8 M o n t

. 3 5 4

, 4 3 P

. 3 d 2 9 8 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. H e f f n e r , 1998 MT 181,

¶ 3 0

, 2 9 0 M o n t

. 1 1 4

, 9 6 4 P

. 2 d 7 3 6 )

. C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e “ w h i c h t e n d s t o

e s t a b l i s h a f

a c t b y p r o v i n g a n o t h e r a n d w h i c h

, t h o u g

h t r u e

, d o e s n o t o f i t s e l f c o n c l u s i v e l y

e s t a b l i s h t h a

t f a c t b u t a f f o r d s a n i n f

e r e n c e o r p r e s u m

p t i o n o f i t s e x i s t e n c e

. S e c t i o n

2 6

- 1

- 1 0 2 ( 1 )

, M C A

. A

n d

, a n i n f e r e n c e is “ a deduction which the trier of fact may make

from the evidence.” Section 26

- 1

- 501, MCA

¶ 4 6 I n t h i s c a s e

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n

b a l a n c i n g t h e p r o b a t i v

e v a l u e o f t h e t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e m i s s i n g k

n i f e a g a i n s t a n y

prejudicial effect that testimony may have. Clearly the jury could properly infer, withou t

arousing any “hostility” towards Meredith or unfairly prejudicin g him, that the knife

missing f r o m Meredith’s landlord’s kitchen was the knife used to kill Torres.

¶ 4 7 A c c o r d i n g

l y

, w e h o l d t

h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t d i d n o t e r r i n a

l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o h e a r

t e s t i m o n y r e g

a r d i n g t h e m i s s i n g k

n i f e

.

Issue 3.

¶ 4 8 W a s M e r e d i t h d e n i e d e

f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o

f c o u n s e l w

h e n h i s c o u n s e l d

i d n o t

o b j e c t t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f s t a t e m e n t s M e r e d i t h m a d e i n t

h e p o l i c e i n t e r

r o g a t i o n

r o o m ?

¶ 4 9 Meredith argues that his right to a fair trial w a s p r e j u d i c e d b y h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l ’ s

f a i l u r e t o m o v

e t o s u p p r e s s t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s h e m a d e t o h i m s e l f w h i l e a l o n e

i n t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m o r t o o b

j e c t t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s a t t r i a l

.15

¶ 5 0 T h e r i g

h t t o e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l i s a f u n d a m e n t a

l r i g h t p r o t e c t e d b y t

h e

S i x t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u

t i o n a n d A r t i c l e I I

, S ection 24 of the

Montana Constitution. A criminal defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel if:

(1) counsel’s conduct falls short of t he range reasonably demanded in light of the Sixth

A m e n d m e n t ; a n d ( 2 ) c o u n s e l ’ s f a i l u r e i s p r e

j u d i c i a l

. State v. Rose

, 1 9 9 8 M T 3 4 2

, ¶ 1 2

,

2 9 2 M o n t

. 3 5 0

, 9 7 2 P

. 2 d 3 2 1 ; S

t r i c k l a n d v

. W a s h i n g t o n , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052

(1984).

¶ 5 1 C l a i m s o f i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l r a i s e m i x e d q u e s t i o n s o f l a w a n d f a c t

w h i c h t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s d e n o v o

. State v. Herman

, 2 0 0 8 M T 1 8 7

, ¶ 1 0

, 3 4 3 M o n t

. 4 9 4

,

1 8 8 P

. 3 d 9 7 8 ; Whitlow v. State

, 2 0 0 8 M T 1 4 0

, ¶ 9

, 3 4 3 M o n t

. 9 0

, 1 8 3 P

. 3 d 8 6 1

. A

d e f e n d a n t m a y r a i s e o n l y r e c o r d

- b a s e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u

n s e l c l a i m s o n d i r e c t

a p p e a l

. State v. Earl

, 2 0 0 3 M T 1 5 8

, ¶ 3 9

, 3 1 6 M o n t

. 2 6 3

, 7 1 P

. 3 d 1 2 0 1

. W e d i s t i n g u i s h

r e c o r d

- b a s e d f

r o m n o n

- r e c o r d

- b a s e d c l a i m s b a s e d o n w h e t h e r t h e r e c o r

d f u l l y e x p l a i n s

w h y c o u n s e l t o o k

, o r f

a i l e d t o t a k e

, a p a r t i c u l a r c o u r s e o f a c t i o n

. S t a t e v

. W h i t e , 2001

M T 1 4 9

, ¶ 2 0

, 3 0 6 M o n t

. 5 8

, 3 0 P

. 3 d 3 4 0

. I f t h e a l l e g a t i o n c a n n o t b e d o c u m e n t e d f r o m

t h e r e c o r d

, t h e c l a i m a n t m

u s t r a i s e t h e i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i m i n a p e t i t i o n

f o r p o s t c o n v

i c t i o n r e l i e f

. Earl , ¶ 39. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

p r e d i c a t e d u

p o n t r i a l c o u n s e l ’ s f

a i l u r e t o o b

j e c t t o m a t t e r s d u r i n g t r i a l c a n b e d e c i d e d o n

t h e b a s i s o f t h e r e c o r d

, t h u s s u c h c l a i m s s h o u l d b e r a i s e d o n d i r e c t a p p e a l

. P e t i t i o n o

f

H a n s , 1998 MT 7, ¶

42, 288 Mont. 168, 958 P.2d 1175.

¶ 5 2 In the instant case, because Meredith’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is

based on c o u n s e l ’ s f

a i l u r e t o o b

j e c t t o t h e a d m i s s i o n a t t r i a l o f t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g16

s t a t e m e n t s M e r e d i t h m a d e t o h i m s e l f i n t h e p o l i c e i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t

h i s c l a i m i s r e c o r d b a s e d a n d i s

, t h e r e f o r e

, c o r r e c t l y b e f

o r e u s i n t h i s d i r e c t a p p e a

l

.

¶ 5 3 M e r e d i t h a s s e r t s o n a p p e a l t h a t h i s r i g

h t t o p r i v

a c y w a s v i o l a t e d b y t h e S t a t e ’ s

u n r e a s o n a

b l e s e a r c h i n t h e f

o r m o f r e c o r d i n g h i s s t a t e m e n t s w i t h o u t h i s k n o w l e d g e w h i l e

h e w a s i n t h e p o l i c e i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m

. M e r e d i t h a n a l y z e s h i s s i t u a t i o n t o o u r d e c i s i o n

i n S t a t e v

. G o e t

z , 2008 MT 296, ¶ 5 4

, 3 4 5 M o n t

. 4 2 1

, 1 9 1 P

. 3 d 4 8 9

, w h e r e i n w e h e l d t h a

t

t h e w a r r a n t l e s s e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g a n d r e c o r d i n g o f f a c e

- t o

- face conversations with

the consent of one of the participants violates the other participants ’ r i g h t t o p r i v a c y a n d

t o b e f r e e f r o m u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s g u a r a n t e e d b y A

r t i c l e I I

, S e c t i o n s 1 0

a n d 1 1 o f the Montana Constitution.

¶ 5 4 G o e t

z i n v o l v e d t w o a p p e a l s w i t h s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t f a c t s

. H o w e v e r

, b e c a u s e t h e

p r i m a r y l e g

a l i s s u e r a i s e d i n t h e a

p p e a l s w a s i d e n t i c a l

, w e c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e c a s e s f

o r

p u r p o s e s o f o r a l a r g

u m e n t a n d r e s o l u t i o n

. Goetz

, ¶ 4

. E a c h o f t h e c a s e s i n v o l v e d a

c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f

o r m a n t w h o w a s f i t t e d w i t h a b o d y w i r e r e c e i v i n g d e v i c e a n d p r o v

i d e d

w i t h m o n e y t o p u r c h a s e d r u g s f r o m t h e d e f

e n d a n t s

. I

n o n e c a s e

, t h e d r

u g b u y w a s

conducted in the defendant’s residence. In the other case, the firs t drug buy was

conducted in the confidential informant’s vehicle and the second drug buy was conducted

in the defendant’s residence. Each transaction was electronically monitored and recorded

by law enforcement officers via the confidential informant ’ s b o d y w i r e

. N e i t h e r

d e f e n d a n t w a s a w a r e o f

, n o r d i d t h e y c o n s e n t t o

, t h e e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g a n d r e c o r d i n g

o f t h e i r c o n v

e r s a t i o n s

. Goetz

, ¶

¶ 5

, 7

.17

¶ 5 5 I n r e a c h i n g o u r d e c i s i o n i n Goetz

, w e a n a l y z e d M o n t a n a ’ s e x i s t i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e

, a n d r i g h t t o p r i v a c y j u r i s p r

u d e n c e

. W e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e i n i t i a l

i n q u i r y i n a d d r e s s i n g q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v i n g w a r r a n t l e s s e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g a n d

r e c o r d i n g i s d e t e r m

i n i n g w h e t h e r s u c h c o n d

u c t c o n s t i t u

t e s a s e a r c h

. Goetz

, ¶ 2 5 ( c i t i n g

S t a t e v

. S c h e e t

z

, 2 8 6 M o n t

. 4 1

, 4 6

, 9 5 0 P

. 2 d 7 2 2

, 7 2 4 ( 1 9 9 7 ) )

. T o t h a t e n d

, w e s t a t e d i n

G o e t z that a search is “ ‘ the use of some means of gathering evidence which infringes

upon a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. ’ ” Goetz

, ¶ 2 5 ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v

.

H a r d a w a y , 2001 MT 25 2, ¶ 16 , 307 Mont. 139, 36 P.3d 900). We further stated that “ [a]

search occurs when the government infringes upon an individual’s expectation of privacy

t h a t s o c i e t y c o n s i d e r s o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e

. ” Goetz , ¶ 25. Where no objectively

reasonable expect a

t i o n o f p r i v

a c y e x i s t s

, a “ s e a r c h ” d o e s n o t o c c u r w i t h i n t h e

c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f A r t i c l e I I

, S e c t i o n 1 1

. Goetz

, ¶ 2 5 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. H a m i l t o n , 2003 MT

71, ¶ 17, 314 Mont. 507, 67 P.3d 871).

¶ 5 6 U n l i k e G o e t

z

, w e c o n c l u d e i n t

h e c a s e s u b j u d

i c e

, t h a t w h i l e M e r e d i t h m a

y h a v e

a n e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v

a c y i n h i s s t a t e m e n t s

, i t i s n o t o n e t h a t s o c i e t y w o u l d r e c o g

n i z e a s

o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e

. M e r e d i t h w a s i n a p o l i c e i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m w

h e n h e m a d e t h e

i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s

. P o l i c e i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m s a r e t r a d i t i o n a l l y a r e a s w h e r e p e o p l e

a r e w a t c h e d a n d m o n i t o r e d i n s o m e f o r m o r f a s h i o n w h e t h e r i t b e b y t w o

- w a y g l a s s

,

v i d e o t a p i n g o r a u d i o r e c o r d i n g

. I n a d d i t i o n

, t

h e r e w a s n o r e a s o n f

o r M e r e d i t h t o m a k e

t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s o u t l o u d u n l e s s h e w a n t e d t o b e o v e r h e a r d

. H a d h e w a n t e d

t o p r e s e r v e h i s p r i v a c y

, h e w o u l d n o t h a v

e v o i c e d h i s t h o u g

h t s

.18

¶ 5 7 B e c a u s e w e c o n c l u d e t h a t n o o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e e x

p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v

a c y e x i s t e d

i n t h i s c a s e

, w e f

u r t h e r c o n c l u d e t h a t a s e a r c h w i t h i n t h e c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f A r t i c l e I I

,

S e c t i o n 1 1

, d i d n o t o c c u r h e r e

. See Goetz , ¶ 25. C onsequently, counsel’s failure to

object did n o t r e

n d e r c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f

o r m a n c e d e f

i c i e n t a n d d i d n o t f

a l l s h o r t o f t h e r a n g e

r e a s o n a b l y d e m a n d e d b y t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t

. See Rose , ¶ 12.

¶ 5 8 Nevertheless, e v e n i f w e c o n c l u d e d t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f

o r m a n c e i n t h i s c a s e w a s

d e f i c i e n t

, M e r e d i t h h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t b u t f o r t h a t

d e f i c i e n t p e r f

o r m a n c e

, t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i f

f e r e n t

. See Rose

,

¶ 1 9

. O t h e r e v

i d e n c e a d m

i t t e d a t t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e d t

h a t M e r e d i t

h w a s w i t h T o r r e s l e s s t h a n

o n e h o u r b e f

o r e h e r d e a

t h ; M e r e d i t h w a s o b s e r v

e d a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e h o m i c i d e l a t e r t h a

t

e v e n i n g ; M e r e d i t h h a

d T o r r e s ’ b l o o d o n h i s s h i r t a n d s a n d a l s ; a n d M e r e d i t h a

d m i t t e d t o

h i s g i r l f r i e n d t h e d a y a f

t e r t h e h o m

i c i d e t h a t h e h a d s t a

b b e d a w o m a n t h e n i g

h t b e f o r e

.

¶ 5 9 Accordingly, we hold that Meredith was not denied effective assistance of counsel

by counsel’s failure to object to the admission of Meredith’s incriminating statements.

¶ 6 0 A f f i r m e d

.

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N

W e c o n c u r :

/ S / M I K E M c G R A T H

/ S / B R I A N M O R R I S

/ S / W

. W I L L I

A M L E A P H A R T

/ S / J I M R I C E