State v. Knowles
2010 MT 186, 239 P.3d 129, 357 Mont. 272 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness arises when, after a defendant's first trial results in a mistrial, the prosecution increases the severity of the charges for a second trial without new evidence to justify the enhancement. Such an action creates the appearance of retaliation for the defendant's exercise of their constitutional right to a jury trial.
Facts:
- In September 2004 and September 2006, Frank Knowles and his wife Cindy adopted two boys, C.F. and B.K.
- Around late April 2008, just before leaving on a business trip, Frank Knowles allegedly struck his adopted son B.K. with a belt approximately fifteen to twenty times on the back of his thigh and hip area.
- On April 29, 2008, while Knowles was out of town, his other son, C.F., arrived at school with facial injuries. C.F. told school officials his mother, Cindy, had slapped him.
- A social worker, Jim Abrahamson, was called to investigate. After interviewing C.F., Abrahamson removed both boys from the home.
- On April 30, 2008, a pediatrician, Dr. Thomas Strizich, examined B.K. and discovered a series of bruises on his right thigh and hip measuring approximately fifteen centimeters.
- After the examination, B.K. told Dr. Strizich and Abrahamson that Knowles had caused the bruises by striking him with a belt.
- Abrahamson called Knowles, who was still on his business trip, to inform him the boys were removed. According to Abrahamson, Knowles did not initially mention any disciplinary incident with B.K.
- Several days later, upon returning from his trip, Knowles met with Abrahamson and admitted to spanking B.K. with a belt.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Frank Knowles with felony assault on a minor.
- Knowles' first trial was held in the First Judicial District Court, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial.
- After the mistrial, the State offered Knowles an open plea agreement on the original charge, informing him that if he rejected it, the charge would be amended to felony assault with a weapon, which carried a significantly higher maximum sentence.
- Knowles rejected the plea offer and exercised his right to a second trial.
- The State filed an amended information charging Knowles with felony assault with a weapon.
- At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief during the second trial, Knowles moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds of vindictive prosecution, which the trial court took under advisement.
- The jury convicted Knowles of felony assault with a weapon.
- At sentencing, the trial court denied Knowles' motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution.
- Knowles appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Montana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor engage in unconstitutional vindictive prosecution by increasing a criminal charge from a lesser felony to a more severe felony after a defendant's first trial results in a mistrial, when the defendant rejects a plea offer and no new evidence has emerged to justify the heightened charge?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cotter
Yes. A change in the charging decision made after an initial trial is completed is much more likely to be improperly motivated than a pretrial decision, giving rise to a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness. Citing United States v. Goodwin, the court distinguished between the broad discretion prosecutors have in pretrial plea negotiations and the higher scrutiny applied to decisions made after a trial on the merits has already occurred. Once a trial has begun, the State has likely assessed all available information and determined the appropriate level of prosecution. Here, after the first trial ended in a mistrial, the State had no new evidence regarding B.K.'s injuries or Knowles's conduct to justify increasing the charge from assault on a minor (5-year maximum) to assault with a weapon (20-year maximum). The court found that this fourfold increase in potential punishment, threatened after Knowles rejected a plea offer and exercised his right to a second trial, created a reasonable likelihood and appearance of vindictiveness intended to deter him from exercising his constitutional rights.
Concurring - Justice Nelson
Yes. Justice Nelson joined the majority's conclusion regarding prosecutorial vindictiveness but wrote separately to express his reservations about the court's existing framework for admitting evidence of prior bad acts (the Modified Just Rule). He believes the rule is confusing and impedes the legitimate use of such evidence. However, he agreed that under the current law, the evidence of Cindy's abuse was correctly deemed inadmissible, and therefore concurred with the majority's result on that issue.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Chief Justice McGrath
No. The prosecutor's actions did not constitute vindictive prosecution. The dissent argued that a mistrial resets the case to a pretrial posture, where prosecutors have wide discretion in plea bargaining. The key precedent for finding vindictiveness, Blackledge v. Perry, involved a defendant who had been convicted and then appealed, whereas Knowles was never convicted. This situation, according to the dissent, is more analogous to the pretrial negotiations in Bordenkircher v. Hayes and Goodwin, where increasing charges after a rejected plea deal was deemed permissible. The majority's holding creates an unworkable precedent that improperly undermines the accepted practice of plea bargaining and prosecutorial discretion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the prosecutorial vindictiveness doctrine by extending its protections to the post-mistrial context. It establishes that a mistrial is not a complete reset to the pretrial stage for charging purposes; rather, it is a 'post-trial' event that triggers heightened scrutiny of a prosecutor's decision to increase charges. By creating a presumption of vindictiveness when charges are enhanced without new evidence after a hung jury, the court reinforces the protection of a defendant's right to a jury trial. This precedent limits prosecutorial leverage in plea negotiations following a mistrial, requiring an objective, evidence-based justification for 'upping the ante' against a defendant who chooses to go to trial again.
