Timeliness and Substance Requirements for New-Trial Motions Based on Jury Pool Irregularities Under § 3-15-405, MCA
Introduction
State v. Craft, 2025 MT 75N, is an unpublished memorandum decision of the Supreme Court of Montana. Although non‐citable, it addresses an important procedural question: when, and on what basis, a convicted criminal defendant may secure a new trial by challenging the empanelment of the jury under Montana’s statutory jury‐selection framework (see Mont. Code Ann. § 3-15-405). The plaintiff‐appellee is the State of Montana; the defendant‐appellant is Brandon Lee Craft, convicted in 2019 of deliberate homicide, evidence tampering, and deceptive practices (three out of four convictions affirmed on direct appeal). In early 2024, Craft moved for a new trial alleging that a subsequent decision in State v. Hinkle exposed a “structural error” in the jury pool procedure used in his original trial. The District Court denied relief as untimely and speculative; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Summary of the Judgment
The Supreme Court reviewed the District Court’s denial of Craft’s post‐verdict motion for a new trial under the abuse‐of‐discretion standard. Key holdings:
1. The motion was filed more than four years after Craft’s jury verdict, well beyond the 30-day deadline of Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-702(2).
2. Craft failed to present “newly discovered evidence” that his 2019 jury pool was irregular; he relied entirely on Hinkle (2023), which involved a technical violation of jury notice requirements that the Court later deemed harmless.
3. The Court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing in the absence of any factual showing that the Cascade County Clerk or Sheriff actually failed to comply with § 3-15-405 in Craft’s case.
4. A speculative challenge, based on Hinkle’s anomalies and offered four years post-trial, does not satisfy the “interests of justice” standard in § 46-16-702(1) or the newly discovered‐evidence factors from State v. Clark, 2005 MT 330.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
State v. Hinkle (Mont. 8th Jud. Dist. Aug. 22, 2023): The District Court vacated Hinkle’s trial pre-emptively upon learning that jurors who ignored mailed jury notices were not “certified” to the Sheriff, nor personally served thereafter, in violation of § 3-15-405(2). Craft invoked Hinkle’s structural‐error rationale, though Hinkle itself involved a direct remedy before trial commenced.
State v. Hillious, 2025 MT 53: The Supreme Court ruled the Hinkle defect was “technical and harmless” rather than structural. This subsequent ruling undercuts any presumption of reversible error from the same statutory lapse.
State v. Morse, 2015 MT 51: Recognized that a new‐trial motion filed before sentencing may proceed under the “newly discovered evidence” doctrine, applying the Clark factors. In contrast, Craft filed post-sentence and long after direct appeal.
State v. Clark, 2005 MT 330: Established five factors for newly discovered evidence: (1) post-trial discovery; (2) due diligence; (3) materiality; (4) non-cumulative or non-impeaching; (5) reasonable probability of different result.
Legal Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning proceeds along two streams:
1. Timeliness Under § 46-16-702. The statute mandates a new‐trial motion within 30 days of verdict or finding of guilt. Craft waited until February 2024—over four years after his November 2019 verdict. Absent an exception, the motion is untimely.
2. Substantive Grounds (“Interests of Justice”). Even if timing were excused, Craft supplied no concrete evidence of jury pool defects in 2019. He relied on Hinkle’s 2023 factual findings, not any newly unearthed record or affidavit concerning his own jurors. There was no showing of prejudice, no evidence the Clerk or Sheriff defaulted in his case, and no diligent pre-trial inquiry by Craft’s counsel.
Impact
State v. Craft clarifies that:
• A structural or procedural defect in jury selection must be tied to the specific trial challenged; speculative reliance on unrelated cases is insufficient.
• Motions for new trials premised on jury‐pool irregularities must be both timely and supported by factual proof of actual noncompliance and resulting prejudice.
• Post-Hinkle challenges in Montana will face high hurdles: later Supreme Court decisions (like Hillious) deeming such lapses harmless further blunt the argument for automatic retrial.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Section 3-15-405, MCA: A two‐step process for juror notification:
- Clerk mails summons to prospective jurors, asking them to confirm eligibility by mail.
- If no response, Clerk certifies nonresponses to the Sheriff, who must personally serve and ensure a response.
In Hinkle, both steps were omitted; in Craft, no proof those steps were missed in 2019.
Newly Discovered Evidence Doctrine: To reopen a criminal case, a defendant must show fresh evidence that, with due diligence, could not have been produced earlier, and that it likely changes the trial result. A case like Hinkle is not “new evidence” about a separate defendant’s jury.
Structural vs. Harmless Error: A “structural error” undermines the entire process (e.g., total deprivation of counsel). A “harmless error” is a procedural slip that does not materially affect the outcome. The Supreme Court in Hillious treated the jury‐notice lapse as harmless; Craft thus cannot press it as a structural flaw.
Conclusion
State v. Craft reinforces strict enforcement of Montana’s 30-day deadline for new-trial motions and requires concrete proof of procedural defects when challenging jury empanelment. Speculative arguments, untimely filings, or reliance on unrelated cases will not suffice. Going forward, Montana practitioners should investigate jury-selection procedures contemporaneously, document any irregularities promptly, and, if a defect is discovered, raise it without delay to satisfy both statutory timeliness and the newly discovered evidence framework.
Comments