State v. Mills, 2018 MT 254, 393 Mont. 121

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed Barry William Mills's convictions for felony and misdemeanor theft. The court held that a good-faith claim-of-right defense may negate the required purpose to deprive an owner of property, but that the issue depends on the evidence and is generally for the jury. The court affirmed the convictions and addressed the interpretation of Montana's theft statutes and the relationship between conditional purpose and unauthorized control.

Holdings

1. A conditional taking or withholding of another's property under an asserted claim of right does not automatically negate the purposeful deprivation element of theft. A good-faith claim of right negates that element only when the defendant acted without knowledge that the defendant lacked lawful authority to take or withhold the property.
2. The District Court correctly denied Mills's pretrial and post-verdict motions to dismiss or for judgment as a matter of law.
3. A defendant is entitled, upon request and when supported by the evidence, to an instruction allowing the jury to consider whether a good-faith civil-law claim of right negated the mental state required for theft. Mills was not entitled to his proposed instructions because they misstated the law or lacked evidentiary support, and the instructions given as a whole were minimally sufficient.
4. The District Court erroneously admitted expert testimony offering legal conclusions and applying civil law to the facts, but the error was harmless.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a claim of right categorically precludes proof of the purposeful deprivation element of theft under Montana law.
2. Whether the District Court erred by denying Mills's pretrial and post-verdict motions to dismiss.
3. Whether Mills was entitled to a jury instruction on a good-faith claim-of-right defense.
4. Whether the District Court improperly admitted expert testimony consisting of legal conclusions and applications of law to facts.
5. Whether admission of the expert legal testimony was prejudicial.

Disposition

affirmed