State v. Guill, 2011 MT 32

Nicole Guill was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent, accountability for sexual intercourse without consent, and incest by accountability, with three concurrent 25-year terms plus 10 years suspended in Sanders County; court also imposed financial restitution and various treatment-related conditions.
The district court ordered Condition 16 requiring Guill to continue to be responsible for all counseling, treatment, or therapy costs incurred by the victim, and Condition 15 requiring restitution, with separate no-contact restrictions with Douglas Guill.
Trial evidence portrayed an extreme, controlling dynamic between Nicole and her husband Douglas, including isolation of other family members and Nicole’s deep dependency and deference to Douglas.
Nicole and Douglas maintained extensive communications during their arrest and trial, including letters and calls, and Nicole sought to protect Douglas by testifying and by continuing their relationship.
The court determined a no-contact restriction was necessary to facilitate Guill’s rehabilitation and protect the victim, while also recognizing the potential privacy and marital implications.
The appeal focuses on (a) whether Condition 16 is illegal for failure to specify a total restitution amount for future medical expenses, and (b) whether the no-contact restriction is illegal or unreasonably broad.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the future medical restitution (Condition 16) illegal?	Guill argues Condition 16 lacks a fixed restitution amount.	State contends restitution can cover future medical expenses as determined by remand proceedings.	Condition 16 is illegal as written; remand for a fixed amount of future medical restitution.
Is the no-contact restriction illegal or unreasonable?	Guill argues it intrudes on marital privacy and is broader than necessary.	State contends it is legally authorized and reasonably related to rehabilitation and protection.	No-contact restriction upheld as valid under statute and constitutional scrutiny.

State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47 (2002 MT 47) (banishment or overly broad restrictions reviewed for rehabilitation)
State v. Ommundson, 1999 MT 16 (1999 MT 16) (nexus and rehabilitative interests for sentence conditions)
State v. Ashby, 2008 MT 83 (2008 MT 83) (nexus and reasonableness of sentence conditions; rehabilitation focus)
State v. Heafner, 2010 MT 87 (2010 MT 87) (fixed restitution amount requirement; remand for correction)
State v. Burch, 2008 MT 118 (2008 MT 118) (statutory authority for restrictions related to rehabilitation and protection of victim)