Background
In 2017, a jury convicted Marlon Daunte Thomas of felony aggravated promotion of prostitution and felony promotion of prostitution. Thomas did not object to the jury-selection process before trial. His direct appeal raised only an evidentiary claim, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed his convictions in 2020.
In March 2024, Thomas moved for a new trial, alleging that the jury-selection process violated § 3-15-405, MCA. The State acknowledged that the Yellowstone County Clerk of Court had not certified nonresponsive prospective jurors to the sheriff for attempted personal service. The District Court denied the motion as untimely and also concluded that Thomas had not satisfied the “interest of justice” exception to the time bar.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. Under § 46-16-112, MCA, a party generally must object to the jury-selection process at least five days before trial unless good cause excuses the delay. Thomas first raised his objection more than six years after the verdict.
Applying its prior decision in State v. Hillious, the Court held that the clerk’s failure to refer nonresponders to the sheriff was a technical, harmless error because Thomas did not show that it affected the random selection of the jury or that prospective jurors were excluded through subjective criteria. Substantial compliance with the jury-selection statutes therefore did not establish good cause for Thomas’s late challenge. The Court declined to address the “interest of justice” exception and rejected consideration of additional constitutional and statutory arguments raised for the first time on appeal, concluding that Thomas had not established grounds for plain-error review.
Key Takeaways
- Challenges to Montana’s jury-selection process generally must be raised at least five days before trial unless the defendant shows good cause.
- A clerk’s failure to refer nonresponsive prospective jurors to the sheriff is technical and harmless absent evidence that it undermined random selection or introduced subjective exclusions.
- Arguments not presented to the trial court generally will not be considered for the first time on appeal, and Thomas did not satisfy the requirements for plain-error review.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Montana’s strict deadline for jury-selection objections and confirms that procedural noncompliance alone does not warrant a new trial. A defendant must connect the error to the randomness or objectivity of the jury-selection process and timely preserve the challenge.
The Court issued the decision as a noncitable memorandum opinion that does not serve as precedent.