State v. E.M.R., 2013 MT 3

Background

E.M.R., a youth under eighteen, was tried in the Montana Youth Court for five counts of dog at large (misdemeanor) and one count of aggravated animal cruelty (felony) after animal-ownership concerns at a hoarder mother’s property.
The State filed amended petitions charging the dog-at-large counts under Lewis and Clark County Ordinance § 4-2006-13, but the amended petitions incorrectly cited Montana Code Annotated § 4-2006-13.
A jury trial occurred in August 2011; the jury deadlocked on animal-cruelty charges, prompting the court to give an Allen instruction and later a Youth Court Act purpose instruction after deadlock.
During deliberations, the court read Instruction No. 22, quoting § 41-5-102, MCA, which the defense argues impermissibly referenced legislative purpose rather than the facts.
Following additional deliberation, the jury convicted on one count of aggravated animal cruelty and on the five dog-at-large counts, with some animal-cruelty charges resolved by verdict and others undecided.
E.M.R. challenged (a) the live instruction about legislative purpose given during deadlock and (b) the denial of a motion to dismiss the dog-at-large counts despite the erroneous statutory reference.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the deadlocked jury improperly instructed about Youth Court Act purpose?	E.M.R. argues the purpose instruction injected non-fact concerns and influenced verdicts.	State contends the instruction was permissible to clarify Youth Court framework during deadlock.	Instruction on legislative purpose was prejudicial error; counts as to Count IX reversed, new trial remanded.
Did the court err in denying dismissal of dog-at-large counts due to erroneous statutory citation in petitions?	E.M.R. argues the statute cited did not exist and the petition was defective.	State argues the charging language, read with the supporting affidavit, satisfied notice and common understanding, despite the error.	No reversible error; the petition and affidavit sufficiently apprised E.M.R. of charges; dog-at-large counts upheld, remand for Count IX only.

Key Cases Cited

Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994) (jury should not weigh sentencing considerations when facts are being decided)
State v. Williams, 184 Mont. 111, 601 P.2d 1194 (1979) (jury verdict must be based on evidence; punishment not a factor)
State v. Zuidema, 157 Mont. 367, 485 P.2d 952 (1971) (jury not to consider consequences of verdict when no sentencing function)
State v. Stewart, 2000 MT 379, 303 Mont. 507, 16 P.3d 391 (2000) (non-capital sentencing considerations impermissible for jury)
State v. Brodniak, 221 Mont. 212, 718 P.2d 322 (1986) (jury should not be influenced by punitive consequences)
In re T.J.B., 2010 MT 116, 356 Mont. 342, 233 P.3d 341 (2010) (guides on youth court procedures and standards of review)
In re G.T.M., 2009 MT 443, 354 Mont. 197, 222 P.3d 626 (2009) (youth court legal standards and de novo review of legal rulings)
State v. Bahr, 2009 MT 378, 353 Mont. 294, 224 P.3d 610 (2009) (charging document sufficiency under common-understanding rule)
State v. Wilson, 2007 MT 327, 340 Mont. 191, 172 P.3d 1264 (2007) (information sufficiency and notice standard)
State v. Hocter, 2011 MT 251, 362 Mont. 215, 262 P.3d 1089 (2011) (jury instructions; standard of review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Dewitz, 2009 MT 202, 351 Mont. 182, 212 P.3d 1040 (2009) (abuse-of-discretion review in Montana criminal instructions)
State v. Cybulski, 2009 MT 70, 349 Mont. 429, 204 P.3d 7 (2009) (jury instructions and appellate review standards)
State v. Bahr, 2009 MT 378, 353 Mont. 294, 224 P.3d 610 (2009) (common-understanding rule for charging documents)