In re B.W., 318 P.3d 682

Between Dec 22, 2011 and Jan 1, 2012 a vandalism spree in Billings caused substantial property damage; police identified multiple juveniles involved.
B.W., age 16, admitted in youth-court plea to criminal mischief "common scheme" but only acknowledged participation on Dec 22 and Dec 29.
The Youth Court adjudicated B.W. delinquent and ordered $78,702.09 restitution (aggregate loss over the entire spree), payable monthly; court retained jurisdiction for restitution until age 21.
B.W. argued on disposition and on appeal he should be liable only for damages from the dates he actually participated, and requested a remand to consider ability to pay.
The State argued aggregate restitution was authorized under the criminal mischief common-scheme statute and relied on In re K.E.G.; it also argued B.W. waived appellate review.
The Court overruled K.E.G., held the State must prove accountability/conspiracy to impose joint-and-several liability for damage caused by others, reversed the restitution order, and remanded for a new restitution hearing including consideration of ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a youth who pleaded to criminal mischief "common scheme" can be ordered jointly and severally liable for aggregate restitution without proof he was legally accountable for acts of other participants	B.W.: restitution should be limited to damages from dates he actually participated; proof of accountability or conspiracy is required to hold him liable for others' acts	State: charging under criminal mischief/common-scheme permits aggregation of pecuniary loss and the State need not separately prove accountability	Court: Reversed K.E.G.; State must prove accountability/conspiracy (or other statutory basis) before imposing joint-and-several liability for damages caused by other actors; B.W. liable only for damages from dates he admitted participation (Dec 22 & 29)
Whether B.W. waived appellate review by failing to contemporaneously object	B.W.: preserved objection at disposition and when clarifying scope of plea	State: no contemporaneous objection, so issue waived	Court: objection was sufficiently preserved; no waiver
Whether remand is required to consider ability to pay	B.W.: requests ability-to-pay consideration	State: did not contest remand for that purpose	Court: Remanded and directed youth court to consider B.W.’s ability to pay when reassessing restitution

In re K.E.G., 298 P.3d 1151 (Mont. 2013) (prior decision permitting aggregate restitution under common-scheme pleading; overruled here)
State v. Paoni, 128 P.3d 1040 (Mont. 2006) (contemporaneous-objection waiver rule)
State v. High Elk, 127 P.3d 432 (Mont. 2006) (elements of accountability for another’s conduct)
State v. Hatten, 991 P.2d 939 (Mont. 1999) (accountability is not a separate offense but a means to hold one accountable for acts of another)
State v. Tower, 881 P.2d 1317 (Mont. 1994) (State’s burden to prove elements of offense and accountability)
State v. Matz, 150 P.3d 367 (Mont. 2006) (burden to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Doyle, 160 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2007) (accountability requires proof of purpose to promote or facilitate and aiding/abetting)
State v. Maetche, 185 P.3d 980 (Mont. 2008) (mere presence insufficient to establish accountability)
State v. Kelsch, 194 P.3d 670 (Mont. 2008) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects)
State v. Spreadbury, 257 P.3d 392 (Mont. 2011) (same)