The Montana Supreme Court ruled on February 10, 2026, in *State v. Billie Jo Henderson*, addressing an appeal from a felony theft conviction that raised questions about the admissibility of hearsay evidence at trial. The case, designated 2026 MT 17, involved Henderson's challenge to her conviction for felony theft of property valued between $1,500 and $5,000.
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the opinion of the court in the case that originated from the Eighth Judicial District Court in Cascade County. Henderson had been convicted by a jury under the supervision of Honorable Elizabeth A. Best, the presiding judge in the original trial.
The central issue on appeal focused on the District Court's decision to allow the State to introduce text messages exchanged between Henderson's co-defendant, Teona Baker, and the complaining witness, Sharen Zeman. Henderson argued that the District Court abused its discretion by admitting these text messages into evidence during her trial.
The State acknowledged that the text messages constituted hearsay and were inadmissible under standard evidence rules. However, prosecutors argued that even if the District Court erred in allowing the messages to be presented to the jury, the error was harmless and did not affect the outcome of Henderson's conviction.
According to court records, Henderson had moved in with her cousin Zeman in October 2021, establishing the relationship context that became relevant to the theft charges. The specific details of the alleged theft and the content of the disputed text messages were not fully detailed in the available court documentation.
The case represents a significant examination of hearsay evidence rules in Montana criminal proceedings. Hearsay generally refers to out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and such evidence is typically excluded unless it falls under specific exceptions recognized by law.
Henderson was represented by Ryan Aikin of Aikin Law Office, PLLC, based in Missoula, Montana. The State's case was handled by a team from the Montana Attorney General's office, including Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Assistant Attorney General Selene Koepke from Helena. Local prosecution was supported by Cascade County Attorney Joshua Racki and Deputy County Attorney Amanda Lofink from Great Falls.
The case followed standard appellate procedures, with briefs submitted on October 29, 2025, and the final decision rendered approximately three and a half months later on February 10, 2026. This timeline reflects the court's careful consideration of the evidentiary issues presented in the appeal.
The Montana Supreme Court's decision in this case will likely provide guidance for future criminal trials involving similar hearsay evidence questions. The court's analysis of whether evidentiary errors constitute harmless error versus reversible error remains a critical aspect of appellate review in criminal cases.
Harmless error analysis requires courts to determine whether the erroneously admitted evidence affected the jury's verdict. If the error did not contribute to the conviction, it may be deemed harmless and the conviction will stand. However, if the error likely influenced the outcome, the conviction may be reversed and a new trial ordered.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges courts face in balancing the admission of relevant evidence with the protection of defendants' rights under established rules of evidence. Text message communications have become increasingly common evidence in criminal cases, raising novel questions about their admissibility and the application of traditional hearsay rules to modern forms of communication.
This ruling adds to Montana Supreme Court precedent regarding the treatment of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings and may influence how trial courts handle similar evidentiary questions in future cases. The decision demonstrates the court's continued oversight of trial court discretion in evidentiary matters and the appellate system's role in ensuring fair criminal proceedings.
The case number DA 23-0608 reflects that the appeal was filed in 2023, following Henderson's conviction in the underlying criminal case numbered BDC-22-484 in Cascade County District Court. The progression from trial court to state supreme court illustrates the appellate process available to criminal defendants seeking review of their convictions.