Judge rejects new trial for Missoula man convicted of killing his mother in 2023

Over the course of last year's trial lasting almost two weeks, Missoula County Attorney Matt Jennings called witnesses and presented evidence arguing that Miller killed his mother, Teri Miller, in a rage over his late father's inheritance. The state showed bags of bloody clothing belonging to Miles, notes in what his sister identified as his handwriting plotting the murder and phone records contradicting Miller's alibi that he was asleep at the time of the murder. 

The defense, led by attorney Jami Rebsom, called into question the integrity of the state's evidence and investigation, arguing through questioning and testimony that police hadn't properly investigated any alternatives and DNA analysis ruled out Miles Miller's presence from key evidence.

After about six hours of deliberation, jurors found Miller guilty of deliberate homicide and tampering with evidence. 

After the verdict, Miller's sentencing was originally scheduled for January. But in October 2025, Miller's defense team filed for a new trial. That legal battle's been waging ever since, up until Halligan's order, including a hearing with oral arguments on May 26.

Under Montana law, a defendant can be granted a new trial if they were deprived or a fair or impartial trial. A judge can also change the verdict to a lesser charge or a finding of not guilty if they find there wasn't sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to convict the defendant. 

In the defense's motions filed over the last several months arguing for a new trial, the defense asserted that evidence was improperly handled by the prosecution, and chain of custody was not maintained. The motions also argue the evidence was insufficient to convict Miller. For instance, the defense argued that handwriting analysis was unable to prove that notes found in the house were written by Miller. These notes were a key part of the state’s case, as they contained references to Miller’s planning process for the murder.

“Defendant has never provided any evidence of tampering or mishandling evidence that could have impaired the veracity of physical evidence or testing,” the state wrote in its response to the motions, filed on Dec. 1, 2025. “The context, dates, location where they were found and subject matter of the notes all contributed to the jury’s understanding of the author and his intentions.”

Halligan ruled there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to find Miller guilty, and there was no evidence presented to show that any evidence was collected improperly. 

The defense argued that the state improperly surprised them with testimony from a fingerprint analysis expert as to facts that weren't disclosed during discovery, while the state presented evidence that the defense actually was provided that information, Halligan's ruling states. 

"The State explains, and the Court agrees, that throughout pretrial and trial it appears as though the Defense did not thoroughly review all the evidence presented in discovery," Halligan wrote. 

The defense also raised issues about jurors in their bid for a new trial.

The trial experienced a dramatic interruption on the first day when a juror collapsed in the courtroom and was quickly aided by both the state's lead witness Ethan Smith and the defense's investigator Mark Strangio, as well as another juror with medical experience. During deliberations, according to court proceedings, one juror was unable to continue due to PTSD and anxiety and his alternate was unable to continue due to medical issues, so deliberations proceeded with yet another alternate. 

Rebsom submitted an affidavit stating, following the verdict, she and co-counsel Kirsten Mull Core had a conference call with the initial juror who was excused due to PTSD and anxiety, and the juror stated he was the sole holdout against a guilty verdict, and didn’t believe the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This call was not recorded, according to court documents.

The defense argued this meant Miller was deprived of his due process rights.

“By excusing the lone holdout, the Court denied Miles the right to a fair and unanimous jury verdict,” an amended motion states.

In response, the state said the juror’s dismissal had nothing to do with his status as a possible holdout.

“Even if the Defense affidavit were accurate, there is no allegation of any external influence on Juror 1,” the response states.  An unrecorded hearsay statement from defense counsel should not serve as the basis for a new trial.”

The response also points out that the defense didn’t object to the juror’s dismissal at the time.

Halligan's order states she found no evidence of procedural error and that the defense properly vetted the alternate juror who served during deliberations.

The defense also argued that the jury was unfairly biased toward the state after seeing Ethan Smith assist a juror through the medical emergency. However, Halligan wrote, this didn't result in undue goodwill toward the state since a defense investigator also helped. 

The defense also brought up irregularities like the trial not being held on Wednesdays to make room for Halligan's law and motion calendar and the fact that the jury was excused during deliberations and returned the next day rather than being required to continue after 5 p.m. Halligan wrote that no evidence was presented that this resulted in any legal error or violation of rights. 

The motions for a new trial said Jennings, who led the prosecution team during trial, made an improper statement during closing arguments. The defense said Jennings argued to the jury that unknown female DNA found under Teri Miller’s fingernails was her own.

“This was a blatant falsity as the female DNA was unknown and not tested,” the motion states. “As a result, Miles should be granted a new trial.”

In response, Jennings included a portion of the trial transcript. In closing statements, the transcript shows Jennings pointing out that Teri’s hands were soaked in her own blood, but Jennings did not comment on DNA testing or results related to it.

“Mostly what is found under Teri’s fingernails was that they were soaked in her own blood,” the transcript shows Jennings saying in his closing argument.

Halligan agreed with Jennings, writing that this argument didn't constitute stating that the unknown DNA could have been Teri Miller's.

"Accordingly, the Defense has failed to demonstrate any improper conduct by the State which justifies granting a new trial, and thus, the Amended Motion must be denied," Halligan concluded.