State v. Otten, 2011 MT 83, 360 Mont. 144

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed Anthony Vincent Otten's conviction for operating a motor vehicle while designated a habitual traffic offender. The court held that a quadricycle could qualify as a motor vehicle under either applicable statutory subsection, that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, and that the jury instructions correctly stated the law.

Holdings

1. A quadricycle may qualify as a motor vehicle under either subsection (i) or subsection (ii) of § 61-1-101(40)(a), MCA. The District Court correctly applied the full statutory definition.
2. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that Otten operated a motor vehicle as defined by § 61-1-101(40)(a)(i), MCA.
3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury using the full definition of motor vehicle in § 61-1-101(40), MCA.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court applied an incorrect statutory definition of motor vehicle when denying Otten's motion to dismiss.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the finding that Otten's four-wheeler was a motor vehicle under § 61-1-101(40)(a)(i), MCA.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by instructing the jury using both subsections of the statutory definition of motor vehicle.

Disposition

affirmed