State v. Ament: Defining the Limits of Judicial Commentary on Defendant Silence and Presumption of Innocence

Introduction

In State v. Ament, 2025 MT 97, the Supreme Court of Montana addressed critical issues arising from a pro se defendant’s felony DUI trial in Flathead County. Charles David Ament, representing himself with standby counsel, was charged with his fourth or subsequent DUI offense. The appeal raised four principal questions: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting only one day to consider a plea; (2) whether testimony about Ament’s belligerence during a post-arrest pat-down was improperly admitted; (3) whether judges’ remarks during the defendant’s closing argument violated his right against self-incrimination; and (4) whether the presumption-of-innocence instruction given to the jury was erroneous. In affirming the conviction, the Court clarified the boundaries of judicial remarks on a defendant’s silence and reaffirmed the standard for plain-error review of unpreserved claims.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Beth Baker, writing for the majority, affirmed Ament’s felony DUI conviction. The Court held:

1. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by granting one day—consistent with § 46-12-203, MCA—to enter a plea.
2. Ament forfeited any objection to Trooper Raymond’s testimony about the pat-down; plain-error review did not demonstrate a violation of any fundamental right.
3. Although the trial judge commented on Ament’s election not to testify when sustaining the State’s objection to “facts not in evidence,” those remarks did not improperly invite an inference of guilt from silence and thus did not warrant reversal under plain-error standards.
4. The presumption-of-innocence jury instruction accorded with the pattern criminal jury instruction and did not deprive Ament of a fundamental right.

Because Ament failed to preserve three of the four issues, the Court applied plain-error review, finding no manifest miscarriage of justice, no threat to fundamental fairness, and no compromise of judicial integrity.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) – Prohibits comment on a defendant’s silence or any instruction suggesting guilt from silence.
• Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) – Forbids impeachment by reference to post-Miranda silence.
• State v. George, 2020 MT 56 – Articulates Montana’s plain-error review framework for unpreserved claims implicating fundamental rights.
• State v. Strizich, 2021 MT 306 – Explains the necessity of specific objections under Rules 402, 403, and 404(b) to preserve appellate review of evidentiary rulings.
• State v. Williams, 2015 MT 247 – Confirms that defective jury instructions are subject to plain-error analysis, focusing on whether due process or fundamental fairness was compromised.

Legal Reasoning

1. Plea Timing: Section 46-12-203, MCA, mandates at least one day to enter a plea. Ament wanted two weeks, but the District Court’s grant of one day complied with the statute’s floor. Ament produced no factual record to show that one day was unreasonable, so no abuse of discretion occurred.

2. Evidentiary Rulings: Ament objected only to “leading” questions when Trooper Raymond described Ament’s agitation and the officer’s thumb injury. He did not invoke Rules 403 (unfair prejudice) or 404(b) (bad-acts evidence). Under Strizich, this omission forfeited review except for plain error. Ament failed to identify a fundamental right violated by this testimony or show manifest injustice from its admission.

3. Judicial Comments on Silence: The trial judge, while sustaining the State’s objection to Ament’s unsworn “facts” in closing, twice reminded the jury that Ament elected not to testify and admonished them to disregard his statements. Although any comment on a defendant’s silence risks encroaching upon the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (Griffin), the Court concluded that (a) the judge was responding to forbidden argument, not suggesting guilt from silence, (b) the jury had been properly instructed on the right not to testify and the presumption of innocence, and (c) under plain-error review, there was no reasonable likelihood that these remarks impaired Ament’s right to a fair trial.

4. Presumption of Innocence Instruction: The instruction tracked the pattern language in Mont. Crim. Jury Instr. 1-104 (2022). Ament did not object at trial or submit alternative language, thus triggering plain-error review. Viewing the charge as a whole, the jury was fully and fairly instructed on the State’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so no fundamental error occurred.

Impact

State v. Ament provides guidance on three fronts:

• Trial courts may firmly sustain objections to unsworn closing‐argument statements but must avoid characterizing a defendant’s silence as inherently suspicious or suggestive of guilt.
• Self-represented litigants must still make precise, rule-based objections to preserve appellate review of evidentiary issues.
• Under Montana’s common-law plain-error doctrine, unpreserved errors affecting fundamental rights will only be reversed in exceptional cases—where there is a manifest miscarriage of justice or an injury to the integrity of the process.

Future litigants and trial judges will look to State v. Ament when navigating the interplay between courtroom management, pro se representation, and constitutional protections against self-incrimination and for a fair trial.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Plain-Error Review – A discretionary appellate standard applied when an issue was not timely objected to at trial. The appellant must show a fundamental right was violated and that failure to correct the error would produce a manifest miscarriage of justice or undermine fundamental fairness.
• Leading vs. Rule 403/404(b) Objections – Saying “leading” addresses question form. To keep evidence out for being unfairly prejudicial or improper character evidence, the objector must specify Rules 403 or 404(b).\
• Presumption of Innocence Instruction – Jury instructions must emphasize that a defendant is presumed innocent, need not prove innocence, and that reasonable doubt requires acquittal. Pattern instructions help ensure consistency with statutory and constitutional mandates.

Conclusion

In State v. Ament, the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed a felony DUI conviction while delineating trial-court authority and limitations on commenting about a defendant’s decision not to testify. The decision underscores the importance of precise objections, the sparing application of plain-error review, and the safeguarding of the presumption of innocence. Trial judges must regulate arguments to keep the record clean without crossing into impermissible commentary on silence. Defendants—especially those representing themselves—must develop a clear record to preserve appellate rights. Together, these clarifications strengthen procedural fairness and reinforce foundational criminal-law protections in Montana.