Archive | Prior consistent statements

RSS feed for this section

State v. Champagne

State v. Champagne, 2013 MT 190 (July 16, 2013) (5-0) (Morris, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly denied Champagne’s for-cause challenge of a prospective juror; (2) whether Champagne’s counsel provided ineffective assistance; (3) whether the district court properly admitted the forensic interviewer’s testimony; (4) whether the district court properly admitted JB’s prior consistent statements; and (5) whether the district court imposed an illegal sentence.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) the record does not support this claim on direct appeal; it should be brought in a post-conviction proceeding; (3) yes; (4) yes; and (5) no, but future restitution has to be in a specific amount, and is remanded for correction of this issue.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded