State v. Hamilton, 428 P.3d 849

Background

Hamilton was tried and convicted by a jury of two counts of incest; sentenced to 100 years with 75 years suspended and 25 years parole ineligibility on each count.
Pretrial: Hamilton did not challenge the statute defining "sexual contact" (§ 45-2-101(67)(a), MCA) at the omnibus hearing, arraignment, or during trial, and did not object to the jury instruction using that statutory definition.
After verdict, a juror contacted defense counsel saying the jury instruction defining "sexual contact" was misleading; Hamilton then moved to dismiss, arguing the statutory definition was unconstitutionally vague (first raised post-trial).
The district court held an evidentiary hearing with juror testimony, denied the motion as untimely and on the merits, then proceeded to sentencing where it considered a psychosexual evaluation and declined to apply the statutory exception to the mandatory 100‑year term.
At sentencing the court orally stated the two sentences would run concurrently; the written judgment was silent on concurrency (silence defaults to consecutive sentences under § 46-18-401, MCA).

Issues

Issue	Hamilton's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1) Whether Hamilton waived statutory vagueness challenges to the definition of "sexual contact" by not raising them before trial	Hamilton: statute is unconstitutionally vague (facial and as-applied); juror statement shows instruction was misleading so post-trial challenge is timely	State: challenges were capable of determination before trial and were therefore waived by failure to raise at omnibus or during trial	Court: Waived. Vagueness challenges were questions of law capable of determination pretrial; jury-instruction objection was untimely when first raised post-verdict
2) Whether Hamilton waived sentencing objections by failing to raise them below (including failure to obtain written findings under § 46-18-223)	Hamilton: district court failed to make/write required findings for denying statutory exception and prejudged sentence	State: Hamilton failed to preserve objections; record contains the court's factual reasons so review is barred absent timely objection	Court: Waived to the extent not raising below; but court reviewed legality and found sentence within statutory parameters and district-court factual findings not clearly erroneous
3) Whether the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement regarding concurrency	Hamilton: written judgment omitted concurrency (which the court orally announced), causing potential imposition of consecutive sentences without his presence	State: concedes conflict and need to correct	Court: Oral pronouncement controls; written judgment conflicted and must be corrected to reflect concurrent sentences (remand)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Norquay, 248 P.3d 817 (Mont. 2011) (adoption of juror‑deadlock instruction at trial)
State v. Reichmand, 243 P.3d 423 (Mont. 2010) (definition of "during trial" for timely objection purposes)
State v. Tucker, 10 P.3d 832 (Mont. 2000) (refusal to remand where sentencing record supplies factual basis for denying mandatory‑minimum exception)
State v. Sprinkle, 4 P.3d 1204 (Mont. 2000) (remand required where court failed to state written factual basis for denying mandatory‑minimum exception)
State v. Lane, 957 P.2d 9 (Mont. 1998) (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written judgment)
State v. Johnson, 14 P.3d 480 (Mont. 2000) (same principle: oral sentence is legally effective)
State v. VonBergen, 77 P.3d 537 (Mont. 2003) (district court discretion to control case progress and consider untimely motions)
State v. Dixon, 998 P.2d 544 (Mont. 2000) (standards for vagueness challenges as applied)