State v. DaSilva, 258 P.3d 419

DaSilva was convicted in Washington in 1998 of second degree assault with sexual motivation.
In 2009, DaSilva notified GFPD of a change of address to a homeless shelter and later to a residence, then moved back to the shelter in January 2009.
A law enforcement pursuit led to DaSilva's February 2009 arrest after he ran when contacted by police.
DaSilva was charged with failure to provide notice of address change as a sex offender (SVORA) and resisting arrest; he moved to dismiss claiming no Montana registration duty on his Washington conviction.
The District Court instructed the jury that a Washington sexual offense required Montana registration and that the Washington conviction was a sexual offense, and it granted a continuance to amend the Information.
DaSilva was convicted on both counts and sentenced as a persistent felony offender to five years, designated as a Tier 2 sex offender.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the instruction that DaSilva's Washington conviction is a sexual offense violate due process?	DaSilva argues instruction usurped jury role, reducing State’s burden.	DaSilva contends the issue is factual; jury should decide if Washington conviction requires registration.	No due process violation; instruction properly stated law and left facts to jury.
Did the continuance for trial to allow Information amendment prejudice DaSilva?	Amendment changed theory; prejudiced defense and undermined speed-trial rights.	Amendment kept the same factual theory; delay was minor and justified to align legal theory.	No abuse of discretion; continuance were within the interests of justice and did not prejudice DaSilva.

State v. Bahr, 353 Mont. 294 (2009 MT 378) (defines SVORA actual offense and related interpretations)
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (distinguishes between questions of law and facts for jury)
State v. Poncelet, 187 Mont. 528 (1980 MT ) (preserves judge's duty to instruct on the law)
State v. Thorp, 2010 MT 92 (2010 MT 92) (jurisdictional guidance on jury instructions in sex offense cases)
State v. Hovey, 2011 MT 3 (2011 MT 3) (standard of review for jury instruction error and due process)
State v. Azure, 344 Mont. 188 (2008 MT 211) (analysis of conviction as basis to require registration)
State v. Jenkins, 100 Wash. App. 85 (2000 WA App) (Washington registration duties interpretation)
State v. Van Natta, 198 Mont. 312 (1982 MT ) (amendment timing and prejudice analysis in SVORA context)
State v. Longneck, 201 Mont. 367 (1982 MT) (arraignment waiver when notice and defense adequate)