State v. Birthmark, 300 P.3d 1140

Birthmark was charged with PFMA as a felony for causing reasonable apprehension of bodily injury to a partner or family member in November 2010 in Glasgow, Montana.
Evidence showed Birthmark, intoxicated and angry, stared at his mother and brother, yelled threats, and described plans to bash heads in and slit throats while near them.
Birthmark left the living room to find a knife; his mother called 911; police observed he was intoxicated and agitated.
At trial, Birthmark testified the threats were directed at party-goers, not his mother or brother, and that his sister may have been the target of concern.
Defense did not offer proposed jury instructions and did not object to the court’s instructions; the jury convicted Birthmark of PFMA and he was sentenced to four years with one year suspended, plus 273 days credit.
Birthmark appealed arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and plain error review, and sought correction of the written judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
IAC for failing to object to instructions	Birthmark asserts counsel failed to object to mental-state instructions.	Birthmark contends instructions were flawed and needed to require intent to cause apprehension.	No ineffective assistance; district court properly instructed on purpose/knowingly with objective standard.
Plain error review of mental-state instruction	Birthmark seeks common law plain error review of jury instructions.	No error in instructions; plain error review not warranted.	Plain error review denied; no error in instructions.
Correction of written judgment	Written judgment improperly imposed parole/conditional-release conditions.	Acknowledges error; correction is appropriate.	Remand for removal of parole/conditional-release language; judgment corrected otherwise affirmed.

State v. Vukasin, 317 Mont. 204 (Mont. 2003) (reasonable apprehension standard is objective for PFMA)
State v. McCarthy, Mont. 1999 (Mont. 1999) (objective standard for reasonable apprehension in PFMA)
State v. Martel, 273 Mont. 143 (Mont. 1995) (victim’s perception proves the apprehension element)
State v. Martin, 305 Mont. 123 (Mont. 2001) (only mental state required is purposely or knowingly)
State v. Hagberg, 277 Mont. 33 (Mont. 1996) (victim’s perception satisfies the element of assault)
State v. Finley, 360 Mont. 173 (Mont. 2011) (plain error review limited to manifest miscarriage of justice)