DA 06-0134
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2008 MT 444
STATE OF MONTANA,
v.
WILLIAM JOHN MATT,
Matt raises three issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err in limiting Matt’s cross-examination of one of the State’s witnesses?
2. Did Matt’s trial counsel provide constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel?
3. Was Matt’s constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of his trial violated and, if so, was the violation harmless error?
¶3 Because we conclude that Matt’s conviction must be reversed under Issue 3, we do not address Issues 1 and 2. Moreover, since this case is being remanded for a new trial, we do not provide substantial details regarding the facts underlying the charged offense.
Matt raises three issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err in limiting Matt’s cross-examination of one of the State’s witnesses?
2. Did Matt’s trial counsel provide constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel?
3. Was Matt’s constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of his trial violated and, if so, was the violation harmless error?
¶3 Because we conclude that Matt’s conviction must be reversed under Issue 3, we do not address Issues 1 and 2. Moreover, since this case is being remanded for a new trial, we do not provide substantial details regarding the facts underlying the charged offense.

Impartial juror

2001 MT 2
STATE OF MONTANA, v.
PAUL BIRD,

1. Whether one of the jurors at Paul's trial should have been removed for cause for
expressing doubt about her ability to remain impartial while deciding Paul's case and
whether Paul was prejudiced by the failure to remove this juror from the final jury panel.
2. Whether defense counsel rendered deficient performance during jury selection for
not removing a juror, whom he had challenged for cause, for expressing concern over
whether she could remain impartial and whether Paul was prejudiced by the failure to
remove this juror from the final jury panel.
3. Whether the District Court violated Paul's constitutional right to appear in all
criminal proceedings against him when the court excluded Paul from the in-chambers
individual voir dire.
4. Whether Paul's right to a fair trial was prejudiced by a law enforcement officer's testimony, based on out-of-court statements made by the victim, that Paul threatened to throw the victim into the river.
5. Whether the State and the District Court improperly shifted the burden of proof to Paul when the State demanded to know why a witness had not been subpoenaed and the court ordered Paul to call the witness.
6. Whether defense counsel rendered deficient performance when he opened the door to
testimony about alleged prior incidences of domestic violence between Paul and the victim.
Because we determine that Issue 3 is dispositive, we do not address Paul's remaining
issues.
We stated in LaMere:
the impartiality of the jury goes to the very integrity of our justice system, and the right to an impartial jury is so essential to our conception of a fair trial that its violation cannot be considered harmless error.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.