State v. B. Boyd, 501 P.3d 409

July 27, 2018: Banner Lee Boyd argued with bar owner Jesse Nelson, left, went to his upstairs apartment, and (according to police) retrieved an ~10-inch kitchen knife and concealed it in his pants.
Nelson was speaking with Officer Ryan Ketchum; Nelson beckoned Boyd down and Boyd came to speak with the officer. During the ensuing encounter Boyd resisted, was subdued, handcuffed, and placed in a patrol vehicle. The knife was discovered during a search of Boyd in the cruiser. Boyd told Nelson (from the cruiser) he would “stab you in the heart.”
Boyd was charged with Assault on a Peace Officer and Attempted Deliberate Homicide with a weapons enhancement. At trial the jury convicted on both counts but rejected the weapons-enhancement/display element on the attempted-homicide charge.
District Court sentenced Boyd to 10 years (assault on an officer) and 80 years (attempted deliberate homicide), with no time suspended; the court also orally imposed parole/supervision conditions (including mandatory medication) should Boyd be released.
On appeal the Montana Supreme Court reversed the attempted deliberate homicide conviction for insufficient evidence (no overt act toward killing), ordered that charge dismissed with prejudice, and held the court erred in orally imposing supervision conditions on an unsuspended sentence — directing the district court to strike the oral conditions while leaving written recommendations intact. Justice Rice dissented as to the sufficiency ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence to convict Boyd of attempted deliberate homicide?	State: Boyd’s acts—leaving the fight, retrieving and concealing a large knife, and moving back toward Nelson—plus his statement to stab Nelson, constituted overt acts toward killing.	Boyd: Those acts were only preparation; he never moved to use the knife on Nelson, so no overt act reached commencement of the crime.	Majority: Reversed—insufficient evidence. No overt act proved; charge dismissed with prejudice. (Justice Rice dissented.)
Did the district court err by imposing supervision/medication conditions orally when it imposed an unsuspended prison term?	State: Court conceded error; remedy is to strike the oral conditions.	Boyd: Oral conditions are illegal and should be removed.	Held: Court erred; remand to strike the orally-imposed conditions. Written judgment may remain as recommendations to the Board of Pardons and Parole.

State v. Rains, 53 Mont. 424, 164 P. 540 (Mont. 1917) (preparing/possessing weapons without movement to use them is only preparation, not an attempt to kill)
State v. Colburn, 385 Mont. 100, 386 P.3d 561 (Mont. 2016) (attempt requires an appreciable fragment of the crime in progress such that it would be consummated unless interrupted)
State v. Gunderson, 357 Mont. 142, 237 P.3d 74 (Mont. 2010) (explaining overt-act standard for attempt and appellate sufficiency review)
State v. Mahoney, 264 Mont. 89, 870 P.2d 65 (Mont. 1994) (overt act must reach toward accomplishment of the desired result)
State v. Fish, 190 Mont. 461, 621 P.2d 1072 (Mont. 1980) (attempt requires more than mere preparation; overt act standard)
State v. Burch, 342 Mont. 499, 182 P.3d 66 (Mont. 2008) (trial courts lack residual authority to impose parole conditions beyond statutory authorization)
State v. Heafner, 356 Mont. 128, 231 P.3d 1087 (Mont. 2010) (remand preferred to correct illegal sentencing provisions rather than wholesale vacatur)