State v. Ghostbear
2014 Mont. LEXIS 627
| Mont. | 2014Background
- Edward Ghostbear was tried by jury on charges including felony sexual assault under § 45-5-502(3), MCA, based on sexual contact with his girlfriend’s young daughter. The jury convicted him of felony sexual assault.
- Post-trial Ghostbear moved to be sentenced under the misdemeanor provision (§ 45-5-502(2)(a)), arguing the felony enhancement in (3) required jury findings of the parties’ ages per Apprendi and § 46-1-401, MCA, which the jury did not separately record. The District Court granted relief and limited sentencing to the misdemeanor range. The State appealed.
- The record included an interview played at trial in which Ghostbear stated his birth year (1977) and acknowledged the child’s age (about 7–8); the child testified about her age as well. Jury instructions tracked the statute and defined lack of consent to include incapacity to consent based on age.
- The Supreme Court majority held there was no separate sentence-enhancement outside the elements of the charged felony because the State charged subsection (3) and the jury necessarily found the age-disparity element when it returned a guilty verdict. The District Court was reversed and the matter remanded for felony sentencing.
- Justice McKinnon wrote a special concurrence: he agreed the Apprendi line of cases was satisfied on this record but reasoned § 46-1-401(1)(b) requires a separate jury finding of enhancing facts (an added statutory protection). He concluded the omission was harmless here because age evidence was uncontroverted, so remand for sentencing was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the felony penalty in § 45-5-502(3) is a sentence enhancement requiring a separate jury finding under Apprendi and § 46-1-401 | State: charging (3) made age disparity an element of the felony; jury verdict necessarily found ages so felony punishment may be imposed | Ghostbear: (3) is a penalty enhancement; Apprendi and § 46-1-401 require jury findings (and separate finding under § 46-1-401) before imposing enhanced sentence | Majority: (3) was charged as the offense, so age disparity was an element found by the jury; District Court reversed. Concurrence: § 46-1-401’s separate-finding rule was not complied with but error was harmless on this record, so remand for felony sentencing is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (establishes that any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to and found by a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (clarifies "statutory maximum" is the maximum based on jury verdict alone)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (extends Apprendi to mandatory minimums; facts increasing prescribed range are elements)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (elements vs. sentencing factors distinction for jury findings)
- State v. Baker, 8 P.3d 817 (Mont. 2000) (Montana case treating age-difference provision as a penalty enhancement under the sexual-assault statute)