Court Opinion

ID: 9511360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:04:05.259147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:59.520312
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE NELSON
concurs.
¶35 Consistent with my positions in State v. Weaver, 1998 MT 167, ¶¶ 22-40,290 Mont. 58, ¶¶ 22-40, 964 P.2d 713, ¶¶ 22-40; State v. Harris, 1999 MT 115, ¶¶ 35-36, 294 Mont. 397, ¶¶ 35-36, 983 P.2d 881, ¶¶ 35-36 (Nelson, J., concurring); and State v. Allum, 2005 MT 150, ¶¶ 59-64, 327 Mont. 363, ¶¶ 59-64, 114 P.3d 233, ¶¶ 59-64 (Nelson, J., dissenting), I would reach the specific unanimity instruction issue via plain error review.1 Accordingly, to that extent, I do not agree with ¶¶ 18 and 19, of our Opinion.
¶36 That said, I do agree with our analysis of the merits of Gallagher’s arguments in ¶¶ 20 and 21, and the result reached on the record here. A specific unanimity instruction was not needed, therefore, defense counsel could not be ineffective for not requesting such an instruction.
¶37 I concur.

 I did not sit on State v. Gray, 2004 MT 347, 324 Mont. 334, 102 P.3d 1255, which is also cited in our Opinion here.