11/18/2025
DA 23-0620
Case Number: DA 23-0620
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2025 MT 264
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH DWAYNE MATT,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Broadwater, Cause No. BDC-2023-05
Honorable Kathy Seeley, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
James Park Taylor, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Kevin Bratcher, Broadwater County Attorney, Townsend, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 10, 2025
Decided: November 18, 2025
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Joseph Dwayne Matt appeals his conviction of Criminal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs in the Montana First Judicial District Court, Broadwater County. Matt asserts that
the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during an
unlawful search of Levi Gadaire’s vehicle. Specifically, Matt argues that despite his status
as a probationer and passenger of the vehicle at the time of the search, he has standing to
challenge the illegal search and the evidence it produced, which he argues should be
suppressed under the exclusionary rule. Additionally, Matt asserts that the District Court
erred in denying his motion to direct a verdict at the close of the State’s case due to the
State’s failure to corroborate accomplice testimony by sufficient independent evidence, as
required under § 46-16-213, MCA.
¶2 We state the dispositive issue on appeal as follows:
Did the District Court err in denying Matt’s motion for a directed verdict based on
insufficient corroborating evidence?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶3 On the afternoon of January 31, 2023, Matt was riding along as a passenger in the
front seat of Gadaire’s vehicle when Gadaire was pulled over for erratic driving by Sergeant
Buck of the Broadwater County Sheriff’s Office. Both Matt and Gadaire were on probation
at the time, and their probations were conditioned upon having no known association with
other probationers and parolees. Additionally, Matt was flagged as an absconder and the
Interstate Compact Office had an active warrant for his arrest.
2
¶4 Matt and Gadaire cooperated with Buck during the traffic stop, providing him with
their names and the fact that they were both on probation. Buck quickly discovered the
warrant for Matt’s arrest, and Matt was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol
vehicle. Buck also contacted Gadaire’s parole officer, Officer Lamb, and informed him of
the traffic stop, Gadaire’s erratic driving, and Gadaire’s association with Matt, an
absconder. Buck also informed Lamb that “the story’s not lining up,” although he did not
provide Lamb with any details as to why he thought something was off. Buck asked Lamb
whether he wanted to authorize a search of Gadaire’s vehicle, and Lamb declined to do so
at that time.
¶5 Almost immediately after Buck’s call with Lamb, Buck stated to Gadaire, “at the
end of the day, you know you’re going to let me search your car.” Then—without any
Miranda warnings—Buck asked Gadaire if he had been drinking or using drugs. Gadaire
answered, informing Buck that he used meth earlier in the morning. Buck then relayed
Gadaire’s admission to Lamb during their second phone call, at which point Lamb
authorized a search of the vehicle.
¶6 Buck searched the vehicle and in its center console discovered two 30-gram bags of
methamphetamine, a plastic container holding 11.4 grams of methamphetamine, a digital
scale, and several small plastic bags. Gadaire was charged with Criminal Possession of a
Dangerous Drug with Intent to Distribute and Criminal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
Matt was charged with Criminal Possession of a Dangerous Drug with Intent to Distribute
by Accountability, as well as Criminal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
3
¶7 Matt’s jury trial commenced on July 17, 2023. The jury heard testimony from
Andrea Flores, the driver who initially reported Gadaire’s erratic driving to the Broadwater
County Sheriff’s Office, as well as Buck who described the traffic stop, the subsequent
arrests, and the search of the vehicle. The jury also reviewed a clip from Buck’s body cam
showing Buck’s initial interaction with Gadaire and Matt, in which Buck asked Gadaire
for his license and Gadaire can be seen rummaging around in the center console. The jury
also saw footage of Buck searching the vehicle and discovering the drugs and drug
paraphernalia in the center console of the vehicle.
¶8 The jury then heard testimony from Gadaire in which he provided an account
different from that of his prior statements.1 Gadaire testified that on the morning of the
traffic stop he had been in Butte dropping off his girlfriend when he got in touch with Matt,
who he knew lived in Butte. Gadaire informed the jury that he was looking for someone
to “ride with him” to Three Forks, Montana, where he had plans to pick up
methamphetamine from “Matt and Ashley,” two drug dealers from Belgrade, Montana.
Gadaire explained that he was looking for company because he was concerned about being
robbed. However, Gadaire admitted that when he called Matt looking for help, he told him
the job would be moving heavy items at his mom’s house in Boulder, Montana, in exchange
for “some product—or cash and some product,” which, according to Gadaire, Matt agreed
to. Gadaire testified that once they were driving over Homestake Pass on I-90, he told Matt
1
Subsequent to trial, Gadaire wrote a letter to the prosecuting attorney recanting his testimony
implicating Matt had any involvement with the drugs or drug deal which led to Matt filing a motion
for a new trial. As the case was on appeal, nothing has occurred with regard to this motion.
4
about his plans to pick-up in Three Forks and Matt agreed to still accompany him and told
Gadaire, “I’ll make sure you’re okay.”
¶9 Gadaire went on to testify that when he and Matt arrived in Three Forks, they went
inside the Lucky Lil’s Casino adjacent to the Town Pump gas station where they then
gambled as they waited for “Matt and Ashley” to arrive. Gadaire provided that once he
heard from “Matt and Ashley,” he and Matt drove across the parking lot to park next to
their vehicle. Gadaire stated that he then got in “Matt and Ashley’s” vehicle, where he
weighed out two one-ounce bags of methamphetamine. Gadaire provided that he then
returned to his vehicle with the two bags of meth and put them both in the center console.
When asked if Matt saw him put the drugs in the center console, Gadaire responded that
he would assume so, and confirmed that Matt was in the passenger seat and awake at the
time. Gadaire then stated that after the pick-up, he and Matt got gas, picked up a cinnamon
roll from Wheat Montana, then started the drive to his mother’s house in Boulder,
admittedly via an indirect route, before they were stopped in Townsend.
¶10 On cross-examination, Gadaire admitted that his story had changed several times
throughout the course of the investigation. Gadaire acknowledged what he calls his “lying
testimony,” in which he told detectives that he was picking Matt up in Three Forks and that
he (Gadaire) didn’t know about the two ounces of drugs. In his second version of events,
Gadaire said that Matt agreed to pay him with drugs if Gadaire picked him up in Three
Forks. Then, after law enforcement informed Gadaire that they would pull fingerprint
evidence from the bags of methamphetamine, Gadaire changed his story yet again,
admitting the drugs were his but telling the detectives that he picked them up in the Town
5
Pump bathroom. In his fourth version of events, Gadaire told detectives that he picked up
the drugs from “Matt and Ashley” in the Town Pump parking lot, but that one of the ounces
had been for Matt. Finally, in his testimony at trial, Gadaire admitted that “[he] never
intended to give [Matt] an ounce at all.” Gadaire also admitted that the container with 11.4
grams of methamphetamine found in the center console belonged to his girlfriend and had
been in the vehicle prior to the pick-up at Town Pump.
¶11 The jury also heard testimony from Matthew Reighard, a deputy sheriff with the
Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Office and sergeant of operations for the Missouri River
Drug Task Force’s Helena office. Reighard reviewed surveillance footage obtained from
the Three Forks Town Pump showing Matt getting into Gadaire’s front passenger seat prior
to Gadaire driving over and parking next to “Matt and Ashley’s” vehicle. Gadaire can then
be seen getting into “Matt and Ashley’s” vehicle for several minutes while Matt appears to
remain in Gadaire’s vehicle. Once Gadaire returns to his own vehicle, he and Matt drive
over to the gas pumps, where they both exit the vehicle to fill up and Matt goes inside the
store front. Additional footage from about five minutes earlier was also reviewed, in which
Gadaire can be seen driving over to “Matt and Ashley’s” vehicle by himself while Matt
remains in the casino. Though Gadaire parks briefly next to “Matt and Ashley’s” vehicle,
he appears to remain in his own vehicle and no interaction between them can be seen.
¶12 Reighard also testified about the interviews he conducted with Gadaire and Matt,
which took place the day after their arrests. Reighard emphasized that while Matt was
adamant that he did not know anything about the drugs and that his fingerprints would not
be found on any of the evidence seized, Matt admitted that he was expecting Gadaire to
6
pay him cash for helping move stuff in Boulder, and that once he got back to Butte, he
might turn that payment “into a quarter gram or something.”
¶13 The jury also reviewed text and call data extracted from Gadaire’s phone. The data
included several calls between Gadaire’s phone and “Matt and Ashley (Belgrade)” over
the days leading up to the traffic stop. The data also included text messages between
Gadaire and other contacts referencing fentanyl and other drugs.
¶14 At the close of the State’s case, Matt made a motion for a directed verdict on the
basis that the State’s evidence was insufficient to support a conviction because it relied on
the uncorroborated statements of an accomplice. Though the District Court acknowledged
the State had a “weak case” and “the [S]tate’s kind of hanging on by a thread,” the court
ultimately denied the motion. The charges were sent to the jury after Matt testified in his
own defense, in which he denied having any involvement with the drugs and drug
paraphernalia found in the center console.
¶15 The jury found Matt not guilty of Criminal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
However, the jury found Matt guilty of Criminal Possession of a Dangerous Drug, the
lesser offense of Criminal Possession of a Dangerous Drug with Intent to Distribute by
Accountability. Matt appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶16 “We review the denial of a motion for directed verdict in the same manner that we
review the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction.” State v. Byers, 2003 MT 83,
¶ 6,
315 Mont. 89,
67 P.3d 880. That is, we review the sufficiency of the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could
7
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Byers, ¶ 6.
“The decision to direct a verdict at the close of the State’s case lies within the sound
discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of
discretion.” Byers, ¶ 6.
DISCUSSION
¶17 Did the District Court err in denying Matt’s motion for a directed verdict based on
insufficient corroborating evidence?
¶18 A defendant cannot be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice, unless the
testimony is corroborated by other evidence that, in itself and without the aid of the
accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. Section
46-16-213, MCA. “Given the motivations of such witnesses to avoid or ameliorate their
own punishment, such testimony is inherently untrustworthy and cannot, without
corroboration, sustain a conviction.” State v. Tollie, 2022 MT 59, ¶ 14,
408 Mont. 129,
506 P.3d 1021.
¶19 To be sufficient, corroborating evidence must do more than merely describe the
circumstances of the crime or raise suspicion of the defendant’s involvement in the crime
charged. State v. Kemp,
182 Mont. 383, 387,
597 P.2d 96, 99 (1979); Tollie, ¶ 15. The
evidence must provide some independent connection between the crime and the defendant
that is apparent without reference to the accomplice testimony. Tollie, ¶ 15. However,
corroborating evidence does not need to extend to every fact the accomplice testifies to.
Tollie, ¶ 15. Nor does corroborating evidence need to, by itself, support a defendant’s
conviction or a prima facie case against him. State v. Black,
2003 MT 376, ¶ 24,
319 Mont.
8
154,
82 P.3d 926. Corroborating evidence can be circumstantial, disputed, or even
consistent with innocent conduct. Black, ¶ 24. Such evidence may also come from the
defendant themselves, or any of their witnesses, as “it is up to the jury to resolve such
factual questions.” Black, ¶ 24.
¶20 In State v. Rose,
187 Mont. 74,
608 P.2d 1074 (1980), we held that a defendant’s
own admission to the possession of two guns stolen in a burglary sufficiently corroborated
testimony of an accomplice in which the accomplice stated that the defendant had
committed the burglary. Rose,
187 Mont. at 80-82,
608 P.2d at 1078-79. In that case,
non-accomplice testimony established that the defendant was a disgruntled patient of the
man who owned the burglarized property, and that the defendant was aware that the
property owner was out of town at the time of the burglary. Rose,
187 Mont. at 76-77,
608 P.2d at 1076. The jury also heard non-accomplice testimony establishing that four of
the stolen guns were found in the defendant’s landlady’s car, as well as testimony from the
defendant himself, in which the defendant admitted to having possession of the guns at a
point in time after the burglary and trying to “stash” them in a pasture. Rose,
187 Mont. at
78,
608 P.2d at 1076-77. Though this Court recognized that the only independent evidence
connecting the defendant to the burglary was the defendant’s admitted possession of the
stolen guns, we held that evidence of his possession was sufficient as a matter of law to
corroborate the accomplice’s testimony. Rose,
187 Mont. at 81,
608 P.2d at 1078 (citing
State v. Williams,
185 Mont. 140,
604 P.2d 1224 (1979) (holding that constructive
possession of a stolen pistol sufficiently corroborated the testimony of an accomplice
where the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit a burglary)).
9
¶21 However, in Kemp, we reversed a defendant’s conviction for the sale of dangerous
drugs, finding the conviction rested solely on accomplice testimony that lacked sufficient
corroboration. Kemp, 182 Mont. at 388,
597 P.2d at 100. The accomplice in Kemp testified
that she had purchased a large quantity of methamphetamine from the defendant, Kemp, at
a Livingston hotel, and that she had also had other drug related dealings with Kemp in the
past. Kemp,
182 Mont. at 384-86,
597 P.2d at 97-98. The accomplice further explained
that because the transaction at issue was for such a significant amount, she received outside
financing for the purchase. Kemp,
182 Mont. at 384,
597 P.2d at 97. According to the
accomplice, one of the financers, a “Bill Knutson” of North Dakota, was to wire $600 to
Kemp’s bank account. Kemp,
182 Mont. at 384,
597 P.2d at 97. The accomplice went on
to provide that after acquiring the drugs from Kemp, she gave the drugs to a friend in Three
Forks for safe keeping. Kemp,
182 Mont. at 385,
597 P.2d at 98. It was during a search of
the friend’s home that the drugs became known to police. Kemp,
182 Mont. at 385,
597 P.2d at 98.
¶22 The non-accomplice testimony presented at Kemp’s trial included testimony from
the friend who admitted to taking possession of the drugs in Three Forks, as well as
testimony from other individuals who had acquired drugs through the accomplice. Kemp,
182 Mont. at 388,
597 P.2d at 99. The jury also heard testimony from Kemp’s banker who
testified that Kemp had received a $600 wire transfer from a Knutson of North Dakota on
the date in question. Kemp,
182 Mont. at 388,
597 P.2d at 99. Additionally, the State’s
case included an entry from the accomplice’s ledger book stating, “B.J. will wire $600 to
First Security Bank direct to you,” which the Stated argued was a reference to Knutson’s
10
transfer to Kemp. Kemp, 182 Mont. at 385,
597 P.2d at 98. The accomplice’s address
book was also found to contain the names of Kemp along with his banker, though the
banker’s name was spelled incorrectly. Kemp,
182 Mont. at 387,
597 P.2d at 99. It was
also noted that the banker’s name was misspelled on the wire transfer just as it had been in
the address book. Kemp,
182 Mont. at 387,
597 P.2d at 99.
¶23 In considering the non-accomplice testimony presented in Kemp, we acknowledged
the contemporaneousness of the wire transfer, but we also recognized that “[w]here the
claimed corroboration shows no more than an opportunity to commit a crime and simply
proves suspicion, it is not sufficient corroboration to justify a conviction upon the
testimony of an accomplice.” Kemp,
182 Mont. at 388,
597 P.2d at 99 (citation omitted).
“The burden was on the prosecution to produce corroborating evidence which, of itself and
without aid or direction from the accomplices’ testimony, connected the defendant with the
crime charged,” and the prosecution failed to meet that burden. Kemp,
182 Mont. at 388,
597 P.2d at 99-100.
¶24 Setting aside the testimony of Gadaire, the State’s case against Matt consisted of:
testimony from Andrea Flores describing Gadaire’s driving prior to the arrest; body cam
footage and testimony from Buck describing the traffic stop and search; text messages and
calls from Gadaire’s phone, including those to and from “Matt and Ashley”; three packets
of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia recovered from the center console of
Gadaire’s vehicle; surveillance footage from the Three Forks Town Pump; and testimony
from Reighard regarding his interview with Matt.
11
¶25 Here, the corroborating evidence is not sufficient to sustain Matt’s conviction. Matt
is not implicated by Flores’s testimony or Gadaire’s driving prior to the traffic stop, nor is
he implicated by Gadaire’s calls and texts to “Matt and Ashley.” Like the defendant in
Kemp, Matt is not connected to the crime charged through the independent dealings of his
accomplice. Though Buck’s testimony and body cam footage does place Matt in the
passenger seat next to the center console where the drugs and drug paraphernalia were later
found, this information merely creates a suspicion of Matt’s potential involvement in the
crime charged. And while the footage from the Town Pump places Matt in Gadaire’s
company in the time both immediately before and immediately after the alleged drug deal,
its relevancy to the crime depends entirely on Gadaire’s testimony. Absent Gadaire’s
testimony, the footage simply shows Gadaire parking his vehicle on the south side of the
Town Pump lot with Matt in the passenger seat, then Gadaire exiting the vehicle and getting
into the passenger side of the vehicle parked in the space immediately adjacent to the
driver’s side of his own vehicle. After several minutes, the video then shows Gadaire
exiting that vehicle and returning to his own, where Matt appears to have remained.
Without Gadaire’s statements, we do not know who Gadaire met or what he was doing in
the other vehicle. We do not see him carrying anything between the two vehicles. We do
not see him put anything in the center console of his vehicle. The video places Matt in
Gadaire’s company prior to the traffic stop, but it ultimately fails to independently connect
Matt to the drug evidence discovered.
¶26 The State points to Reighard’s testimony and Matt’s statements during the post
arrest interview in which Matt admitted that he may have used the cash he earned from
12
Gadaire to buy drugs when he got home to Butte. However, Matt’s potential to acquire
drugs at some unknown time in the future does not connect him to the drugs found in the
center console of Gadaire’s vehicle. See §§ 45-9-102, 45-2-101(59), MCA; see also In re
R.L.H., 2005 MT 177, ¶ 18,
327 Mont. 520,
116 P.3d 791 (a person commits the offense
of criminal possession of a dangerous drug when a person knowingly has dominion and
control over a dangerous drug).
¶27 Absent Gadaire’s testimony, the only independent evidence that has any tendency
to link Matt to the crime is his mere presence in the vehicle at the time of the traffic stop.
Though, unlike Rose, Matt does not admit to possessing the drugs or having any knowledge
of the drugs being in existence. Rather, like Kemp, we find that the contemporaneousness
of Matt’s presence in the vehicle and the alleged drug deal “casts a cloud of suspicion over
[Matt],” but “[w]here the claimed corroboration shows no more than an opportunity to
commit a crime and simply proves suspicion, it is not sufficient corroboration to justify a
conviction upon the testimony of an accomplice.” Kemp,
182 Mont. at 388,
597 P.2d at 99.
It was the State’s burden to produce corroborating evidence to connect Matt to the crime
charged, independent of the aid and direction of Gadaire’s testimony. The State failed to
meet its burden. The District Court erred in denying Matt’s motion for directed verdict.
¶28 As resolution of this issue is dispositive, we need not address Matt’s additional
claim that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
CONCLUSION
¶29 The District Court erred in denying Matt’s motion for a directed verdict at trial. A
conviction that rests on the testimony of an accomplice cannot stand without sufficient
13
corroboration. Accordingly, Matt’s conviction is reversed and remanded to the District
Court to vacate the judgment and sentence, and dismiss the cause.
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY
/S/ BETH BAKER
Chief Justice Cory J. Swanson has recused himself and took no part in these proceedings.
14
