State v. Hovey, 248 P.3d 303

Hovey appeals his 42-count conviction for sexual abuse of children on alleged jury instruction error.
In 2008, Hovey, 47, emailed a mother of two girls (ages 15 and 17) containing inappropriate sexual content and a possible death threat; police discovered child-pornography images on his computer.
He was under Montana supervision since 2006; two Probation & Parole officers arrested him and seized his computer.
He represented himself at trial; admitted downloading naked child images to compare to models, claiming some were adults, but records show underage sexual conduct photos.
The District Court instructed on two 'knowingly' meanings (conduct and high-probability of a fact); Hovey objected but did not pursue a contrary argument due to court interruption.
Jury found Hovey guilty on 42 counts; the court affirmed the jury instructions after review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instructions on 'knowingly' were an abuse of discretion	Hovey argues only conduct/circumstance definitions should be used	State contends separate definitions fit the case and are not error	No abuse; court allowed multiple definitions appropriate to elements
Whether different 'knowingly' definitions may apply to different elements	Lambert requires a single definition per offense	Statute allows element-specific definitions under §45-2-103(4)	Permissible; different definitions applied to different elements
Waiver of challenge to jury instructions	Failure to argument to the court should not waive review due to interruption	Waiver applies if not properly raised	Not waived; petitioner preserved argument due to court interruption

Lambert v. State, 280 Mont. 231, 929 P.2d 846 (Mont. 1996) (knowingly defined offense as 'result of conduct' for criminal endangerment)
State v. Christiansen, 2010 MT 197, 357 Mont. 379, 239 P.3d 949 (Mont. 2010) (jury instructions must be plain, clear, concise; define law fairly)