Allen instruction in Montana

2014State v. Pound, 2014 MT 143, ¶ 20 , 375 Mont. 241 , 326 P.3d 422 .

2014State v. Pound, 2014 MT 143, ¶ 20 , 375 Mont. 241 , 326 P.3d 422 .

2012Griffith, 479 U.S. at 327-28 , 107 S. Ct. at 715-16 ; see also Reichmand, ¶¶ 11-12. ¶31 For these reasons, we hold that regardless of Detective Lester’s good-faith reliance on extant caselaw, Stewart is entitled to have this Court’s holding in Allen applied to his case, with the result that if there was indeed an Allen violation, then Stewart is entitled to relief for that violation-i.e., a new trial in which the challenged evidence is excluded-unless the Allen violation was harmless.

2012Griffith, 479 U.S. at 327-28 , 107 S. Ct. at 715-16 ; see also Reichmand, ¶¶ 11-12. ¶31 For these reasons, we hold that regardless of Detective Lester’s good-faith reliance on extant caselaw, Stewart is entitled to have this Court’s holding in Allen applied to his case, with the result that if there was indeed an Allen violation, then Stewart is entitled to relief for that violation-i.e., a new trial in which the challenged evidence is excluded-unless the Allen violation was harmless.

2011Jones v. U.S., 946 A.2d 970, 973-74 (D.C. 2008); Thompson v. Md., 371 Md. 473, 486 , 810 A.2d 435, 443 (Md. 2002); Idaho v. Flint, 114 Idaho 806, 812 , 761 P.2d 1158 ; 1164 ( Idaho 1988 ). ¶40 The Maryland Supreme Court has struck language in an Allen- instruction that suggests that the jury’s “final test” requires them to make a determination of guilt or innocence, rather than to stay true to any individual convictions or opinions.

2011Jones v. U.S., 946 A.2d 970, 973-74 (D.C. 2008); Thompson v. Md., 371 Md. 473, 486 , 810 A.2d 435, 443 (Md. 2002); Idaho v. Flint, 114 Idaho 806, 812 , 761 P.2d 1158 ; 1164 ( Idaho 1988 ). ¶40 The Maryland Supreme Court has struck language in an Allen- instruction that suggests that the jury’s “final test” requires them to make a determination of guilt or innocence, rather than to stay true to any individual convictions or opinions.

2007“In the archetypal Allen charge context, the judge instincts a deadlocked jury to strive for a unanimous verdict.” U.S. v. Berger, 473 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). ¶69 This Court addressed an Allen instruction for the first time in State v. Randall, 137 Mont. 534, 540-42, 353 P.2d 1054, 1057-58 (1960).

2007"In the archetypal Allen charge context, the judge instructs a deadlocked jury to strive for a unanimous verdict." U.S. v. Berger, 473 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.2007) (internal citations omitted). ¶ 69 This Court addressed an Allen instruction for the first time in State v. Randall, 137 Mont. 534, 540-42 , 353 P.2d 1054, 1057-58 (1960).

2004Randall, 137 Mont. at 542 , 353 P.2d at 1058 . ¶27 Without addressing Randall we also considered an Allen instruction argument in State v. George (1986), 219 Mont. 377 , 711 P.2d 1379 .

2004Randall, 137 Mont. at 542 , 353 P.2d at 1058 . ¶27 Without addressing Randall we also considered an Allen instruction argument in State v. George (1986), 219 Mont. 377 , 711 P.2d 1379 .

2001State v. Fina (1995), 273 Mont. 171, 175 , 902 P.2d 30 , 33 DISCUSSION ¶6 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Allen's motion for a new trial? ¶7 Allen argues that the newly discovered evidence would likely produce a different result at trial because the repair estimate of the vehicle was inflated, the repairs were not made by the person who did the estimate, the vehicle later sold for the same amount that the victim paid for it, and newly discovered evidence proved that the victim lied under oath.

2001State v. Fina (1995), 273 Mont. 171, 175 , 902 P.2d 30 , 33 DISCUSSION ¶6 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Allen's motion for a new trial? ¶7 Allen argues that the newly discovered evidence would likely produce a different result at trial because the repair estimate of the vehicle was inflated, the repairs were not made by the person who did the estimate, the vehicle later sold for the same amount that the victim paid for it, and newly discovered evidence proved that the victim lied under oath.

2001Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 ; Strickler v. Greene *260 (1999), 527 U.S. 263, 291 , 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1953 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 . ¶28 Allen’s claim that Anciaux failed to conduct an adequate investigation is not supported by the record.

2001Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 ; Strickler v. Greene *260 (1999), 527 U.S. 263, 291 , 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1953 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 . ¶28 Allen’s claim that Anciaux failed to conduct an adequate investigation is not supported by the record.

2001Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 ; Strickler v. Greene *260 (1999), 527 U.S. 263, 291 , 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1953 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 . ¶28 Allen’s claim that Anciaux failed to conduct an adequate investigation is not supported by the record.

2001Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 ; Strickler v. Greene *260 (1999), 527 U.S. 263, 291 , 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1953 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 . ¶28 Allen’s claim that Anciaux failed to conduct an adequate investigation is not supported by the record.

1998See State v. Scheetz (1997), 286 Mont. 41, 44 , 950 P.2d 722, 724 ; State v. Graham (1995), 271 Mont. 510, 512 , 898 P.2d 1206, 1207-08 . ¶10 Pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

1998See State v. Scheetz (1997), 286 Mont. 41, 44 , 950 P.2d 722, 724 ; State v. Graham (1995), 271 Mont. 510, 512 , 898 P.2d 1206, 1207-08 . ¶10 Pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

1998See State v. Scheetz (1997), 286 Mont. 41, 44 , 950 P.2d 722, 724 ; State v. Graham (1995), 271 Mont. 510, 512 , 898 P.2d 1206, 1207-08 . ¶10 Pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

1998See State v. Scheetz (1997), 286 Mont. 41, 44 , 950 P.2d 722, 724 ; State v. Graham (1995), 271 Mont. 510, 512 , 898 P.2d 1206, 1207-08 . ¶10 Pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.