State v. Hovey, 248 P.3d 303

Hovey was convicted in the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court of 42 counts of sexual abuse of children (initially 50 counts) based on his possession of child pornography.
Hovey, appearing pro se, testified he conducted research for a book and downloaded images to compare models to determine age, admitting some naked-children photos were on his computer.
An email Hovey sent in September 2008 to the mother of two minor girls prompted police to seize his computer, where investigators found child-pornography images.
The statute at issue, § 45-5-625(1)(e), MCA (2007), criminalizes knowingly possessing any visual medium in which a child is engaged in sexual conduct.
The district court instructed the jury with two different definitions of “knowingly”: a conduct-oriented definition and a fact-oriented definition, after rejecting Hovey’s proposed single instruction.
Hovey appealed arguing the court should have given a single conduct/circumstance definition and that multiple instructions risked confusing the jury; the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in giving challenged knowingly instructions.	Hovey contends a single conduct/circumstance definition was required.	State argues multiple valid knowingly definitions may apply to different elements and that the court’s instructions were appropriate.	No abuse; different knowingly definitions may apply to different elements; instructions affirmed.

Lambert v. State, 280 Mont. 231, 929 P.2d 846 (1996) (held that ‘knowingly’ for criminal endangerment is based on the result of conduct and may require a different instruction)
State v. Christiansen, 2010 MT 197, 357 Mont. 379, 239 P.3d 949 (2010) (guidance on requiring clear, fair jury instructions; relevance to standard of review for jury instructions)