State v. D. Ohl, 521 P.3d 759

In June 2020 the District Court revoked Ohl’s suspended sentence and committed him to the Department of Corrections, ordering him to report to his probation officer within two days.
The court noted that, after sentencing, Ohl was "committed to the Department of Corrections" and thus in DOC custody; Ohl did not report and was arrested months later.
The State charged Ohl with felony escape under § 45-7-306(2), MCA (knowingly or purposely eluding official detention or failing to return after temporary leave).
Ohl moved (1) to dismiss for insufficient evidence arguing that he never changed "legal status" and therefore could not have "eluded placement in legal custody," and (2) to instruct the jury on criminal contempt as a lesser-included offense.
The District Court denied both motions, the jury convicted Ohl of escape, and he was sentenced to six years suspended. Ohl appealed.

Issue	State's Argument	Ohl's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by denying Ohl’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence based on the statutory meaning of "official detention" / "legal custody"	The escape statute was amended to criminalize eluding custody based on placement in "legal custody," not a narrow change-of-status theory; evidence that Ohl failed to report supported a finding of eluding custody.	Ohl argued "legal custody" refers to a court-created legal status (citing a Title 41 definition), and because his legal status remained as a DOC commit he could not have "eluded" custody as a matter of law.	Affirmed. Court construed "legal custody" consistent with legislative intent to close loopholes (post-1997 amendments); interpreting it to require a change in legal status would produce absurd results (e.g., outdoor escapes). Evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find escape.
Whether the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on criminal contempt as a lesser-included offense of escape	The State argued criminal contempt and escape have distinct elements and contempt is not an included offense of escape.	Ohl argued criminal contempt (disobeying a court mandate) is a lesser or alternative offense and merited instruction.	Affirmed. Criminal contempt is not a lesser-included offense under § 46-1-202(9): its elements are broader and qualitatively different (many contempts do not involve "eluding" placement in legal custody), so the instruction was not required.

State v. Nelson, 910 P.2d 247 (Mont. 1996) (interpreting escape statute’s enumerated locations and leading to legislative amendment)
State v. Roberts, 912 P.2d 812 (Mont. 1996) (furlough failure held not to constitute escape under pre-amendment statute)
State v. Molenda, 243 P.3d 387 (Mont. 2010) (explaining the statutory test for included offenses and the meaning of “facts” in that test)
State v. Williams, 228 P.3d 1127 (Mont. 2010) (analyzing when one offense is included within another for double jeopardy/instruction purposes)
State v. McWilliams, 178 P.3d 121 (Mont. 2008) (standard of review for motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence)
State v. Beavers, 987 P.2d 371 (Mont. 1999) (lesser-included instruction standards)
State v. Denny, 485 P.3d 1227 (Mont. 2021) (abuse-of-discretion review for refusal to give lesser-included instruction)