Langford v. State, 309 P.3d 993

Langford, convicted in 1992 of incest, was sentenced to prison with terms including mandatory registration as a sexual offender and treatment requirements.
He did not receive a formal level designation at sentencing because none was required at that time.
In 2012 Langford petitioned for relief from the duty to register under § 46-23-506(3)(b), MCA; a hearing was held in August 2012.
The district court considered testimony from Langford, a psychosexual evaluator, and a letter from the victim (B.S.), who opposed relief and described ongoing harm.
The district court denied relief, finding continued registration necessary for public protection, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding proper discretion and interpretation of the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying relief from registration	Langford contends the court misread the statute to require no chance of reoffending for relief.	State argues continued risk justifies denial to protect the public.	No abuse; court properly denied relief, recognizing some risk and victim input.

In re C.D.H., 349 Mont. 1 (2009 MT 8) (statutory interpretation and discretionary review standard)
State v. Burke, 329 Mont. 1 (2005 MT 250) (abuse of discretion standard for district court decisions)
State v. Rovin, 349 Mont. 57 (2009 MT 16) (abuse-of-discretion and reasoned analysis requirement)
City of Missoula v. Girard, 370 Mont. 443 (2013 MT 168) (error of law or evidentiary basis as basis for abuse)
State v. Lally, 348 Mont. 59 (2008 MT 452) (credibility and demeanor as factors in evaluating testimony)
State v. Gray, 307 Mont. 124 (2001 MT 250) (standard of review for discretionary decisions)