Opinion
DA 22-0523
07-02-2024
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL VOYLES, Defendant and Appellant.
ORDER
Appellant Michael Voyles has filed a Petition for Rehearing in the captioned matter. Appellee, the State of Montana, has responded objecting to the petition.
This Court will consider a petition for rehearing presented only upon the following grounds:
(i) That it overlooked some fact material to the decision;
(ii) That it overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case; or
(iii) That its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed by the supreme court.M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a).
Voyles contends that we overlooked several comments made by the prosecutor during trial and that, had we considered them, our decision that Voyles had not received an unfair trial would change. However, we stated in our Opinion that:
We have reviewed the remaining prosecutorial comments Voyles alleges were improper in context and decline to exercise plain error review of them as our review does not show a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled a question of the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.State v. Voyles, 2024 MT 126N, ¶ 18, __ Mont. __, __ P.3d __ (emphasis added). This clearly disposes of Voyles's argument in his petition that we overlooked a material fact or question presented by counsel that would prove decisive. A petition for rehearing is not a forum in which to rehash arguments made in briefs and considered by the Court. State ex rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., No. DA 07-0299, 217 P.3d 475 (Mont. Sept. 9, 2009).
Nor does Voyles raise a controlling decision that conflicts with our Opinion. The comments Voyles points to are not ''analogous" to the comments we held were improper in State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274. ¶¶ 30-33, 345 Mont. 252, 190 P.3d 1091, and State v. Byrne, 2021 MT 238, ¶ 27, 405 Mont. 352, 495 P.3d 440. Both of those cases involved a prosecutor or expert witness directly opining on the credibility of witnesses in the case, thus invading the jury's function. Here, viewed in context, the prosecutorial comments Voyles points to did not purport to offer personal opinions on the credibility of witnesses thereby usurping the jury's role. Instead, the commentary merely pointed the jury to prior testimony and inferences the jury could properly draw from the evidence. State v. Green, 2009 MT 114, ¶ 33, 350 Mont. 141, 205 P.3d 798.
This case was decided by unpublished opinion, pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court. Unpublished opinions are per se summary actions and generally unanimous dispositions following the Court's consideration of an appeal. They do not necessarily contain a detailed analysis of all the issues raised on appeal; however, that does not mean that the Court overlooked a particular argument or issue raised by a party.
The Court having duly considered the petition and the response, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.