State v. Gregori, 328 P.3d 1128

Background

In Sept. 2012 Settimo “Sam” Gregori and his brother Michael were heavily intoxicated and fought; Michael’s daughter Kodie intervened and testified Gregori punched her twice.
Gregori was charged with two felony Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA) counts: Count I (assault on Michael) and Count II (assault on Kodie).
At the close of the State’s case, Gregori moved for judgment as a matter of law on Count II, arguing Kodie did not qualify as a “family member” under § 45-5-206, MCA, because she never resided in the same household as him.
The District Court denied the motion, concluding the statute could be read to consider separate households (e.g., Kodie’s residence with Michael) and the jury convicted Gregori on Count II (he was acquitted on Count I).
The Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding the PFMA statute’s “family member” definition refers to persons who resided with the defendant (the defendant’s household), and Kodie was not shown to have lived with Gregori.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kodie qualifies as a “family member” under § 45-5-206 for PFMA	The State contended Kodie was a family member for purposes of PFMA	Gregori argued Kodie never resided in his household and thus did not meet the statute’s definition	Reversed: Kodie was not a “family member” because no evidence she ever resided with Gregori; statute references defendant’s household
Whether the District Court erred denying JMOL on Count II	The State relied on jury verdict and District Court’s statutory reading	Gregori moved for judgment as a matter of law for insufficient evidence on the family-member element	Court reviewed de novo and found insufficient evidence to support PFMA conviction as to Kodie
Proper construction of “family member” in § 45-5-206	The State defended the prior ruling allowing household of another victim to suffice	Gregori urged a plain-language construction requiring residence with the defendant	Court held plain language and legislative history show the residence requirement applies to the defendant’s household
Effect of acquittal on related victim for statutory analysis	The State maintained Kodie’s residence with Michael could make her a family member even if Michael was not convicted	Gregori noted Michael’s acquittal meant he was not a “victim,” so Kodie did not reside with a victim or the defendant	Court observed that Michael’s acquittal further undermined any argument Kodie resided in a victim’s household

Key Cases Cited

State v. Criswell, 370 Mont. 511, 305 P.3d 760 (2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence after a JMOL motion)
State v. Johnson, 365 Mont. 56, 277 P.3d 1232 (2012) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
State v. Goebel, 305 Mont. 53, 31 P.3d 335 (2001) (when statutory language is ambiguous, legislative history may be consulted)
State v. Clark, 347 Mont. 113, 197 P.3d 977 (2008) (use criminal statutes in effect at time of offense)