State v. E.M.R., 292 P.3d 451

E.M.R., a youth under 18, was tried in Lewis and Clark County Youth Court in August 2011 for five counts of dog at large (misdemeanor) and one count of aggravated animal cruelty (felony).
The State filed an amended petition charging two animal cruelty offenses and five dog-at-large offenses; later amendments mis-cited the governing statute as § 4-2006-13, MCA instead of the county ordinance.
Neighbors reported welfare concerns for the animals; investigations found malnutrition, dogs living in inadequate conditions, and several animals euthanized or found deceased on the property.
E.M.R. turned eighteen about a month before trial but was tried in Youth Court because the alleged offenses occurred prior to age 18.
During trial, a jury became deadlocked on animal cruelty charges; the court issued an Allen-type instruction and then, after debate, read a proposed instruction on the Youth Court Act’s purposes (Instruction No. 22).
The jury returned verdicts finding five counts of dog at large and one count of aggravated animal cruelty; one animal cruelty charge remained unresolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court abuse discretion by instructing a deadlocked jury on Youth Court Act purposes?	E.M.R. contends the purpose instruction injected improper considerations into factfinding.	State argues it's permissible to provide context about Youth Court purposes to assist deliberations.	Prejudicial error; reversal of Count IX (aggravated animal cruelty); others affirmed.
Did the court err in denying dismissal of five dog-at-large counts due to erroneous statutory reference in amended petitions?	E.M.R. asserts the misuse of a non-existent statute taints charging documents and warrants dismissal.	State argues defendant was adequately apprised of charges; no prejudice from the citation error.	No reversible error; petition adequate under common understanding rule; affirmed.

Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994) (jury must not consider sentencing consequences; irrelevant to factfinding)
State v. Brodniak, 221 Mont. 212 (1986) (limits on jury consideration of punishment in non-capital cases)
State v. Williams, 184 Mont. 111 (1979) (jury's role is to find guilt; punishment not for jury)
State v. Zuidema, 157 Mont. 367 (1971) (reinforces jury's lack of concern with consequences when weighing elements)
State v. Stewart, 2000 MT 379 (2000) (reiterates prohibition on considering sentencing in verdicts)
In re G.T.M., 2009 MT 443 (2009) (standard for de novo review of legal questions in Youth Court)
State v. Bahr, 2009 MT 378 (2009) (common understanding rule for charging documents; minor drafting errors)
State v. Wilson, 2007 MT 327 (2007) (information sufficiency; charging language considered as a whole)
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896) (deadlocked jury may be instructed with an Allen instruction)
State v. Williams, 601 P.2d 1194 (1979) (jury's lack of consideration of punishment is improper)