Matter of B.W., 318 P.3d 682

Between Dec 22, 2011 and Jan 1, 2012 a series of vandalism incidents occurred in Billings; damages totaled $78,702.09.
B.W., a 16‑year‑old, admitted in juvenile court to criminal mischief under a "common scheme" but only admitted participating on Dec 22 and Dec 29.
The Youth Court ordered B.W. to pay $78,702.09 in restitution (joint and several) — the aggregate loss for the entire 11‑day spree — payable monthly, and retained jurisdiction for restitution until age 21.
On appeal B.W. argued he should only be liable for damages from the two nights he participated unless the State proved accountability/conspiracy for other nights; he also sought a remand to assess ability to pay.
The State relied on the common‑scheme charge and § 45‑6‑101(4) (aggregation for pecuniary loss) and urged that accountability need not be proved; it also argued B.W. waived the issue by his plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Youth Court may order joint and several restitution for aggregate damages from a common‑scheme vandalism spree without proof of accountability for acts the juvenile did not commit	State: aggregation under criminal mischief (common scheme) authorizes restitution for the aggregate pecuniary loss; accountability proof not required	B.W.: can only be held liable for others' acts if State proves accountability/conspiracy (or other legal basis); here he only admitted to two nights	Court: Overruled earlier companion precedent (K.E.G.) and held State must prove accountability/conspiracy to impose joint and several liability for damages the juvenile did not cause; reversed and remanded for a new restitution order limited to damages from nights he participated (Dec 22 & 29) and consideration of ability to pay
Whether B.W. waived appellate review of the restitution calculation by plea	State: failure to contemporaneously object waived the issue	B.W.: defense counsel preserved the objection at disposition and clarified plea covered only two nights	Court: No waiver — statements at hearing preserved the issue for appeal
Whether remand must include consideration of ability to pay	State: (implicitly) restitution order stands; remand not necessary beyond procedure	B.W.: at minimum remand for ability‑to‑pay inquiry	Court: Remand directed; court should consider ability to pay when reassessing restitution (consistent with prior guidance)

In re K.E.G., 298 P.3d 1151 (Mont. 2013) (addressed restitution for aggregate damages from same vandalism spree; Court overruled insofar as it permitted aggregate restitution without accountability proof)
State v. Maetche, 185 P.3d 980 (Mont. 2008) (mere presence insufficient to establish accountability; elements for accountability explained)
State v. Hatten, 991 P.2d 939 (Mont. 1999) (accountability is the mechanism to hold a person responsible for another’s acts)
State v. Matz, 150 P.3d 367 (Mont. 2006) (State bears burden to prove elements of charged offense, including accountability when relied upon)