State v. J. Brave, 376 P.3d 139

In 2013 Brave (age 18) was charged with sexual intercourse without consent involving A.C. (age 14); he pled guilty in 2014 to an amended felony count of criminal endangerment.
A.C. gave birth to twins; A.C.’s mother, D.C., took ten weeks of FMLA leave three months after the birth to care for A.C. and the infants.
At restitution hearing the District Court ordered Brave to pay $35,667.36 to D.C., including $25,000 for D.C.’s lost wages during the ten weeks of FMLA leave.
The District Court imposed a six‑year deferred sentence with multiple probation conditions (including sex‑offender designation, treatment, and polygraph testing).
Brave appealed the restitution award and several probation conditions; the State conceded errors as to several probation terms and the court considered statutory standards for restitution and sentence legality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether $25,000 in lost wages to D.C. is recoverable restitution	D.C. (State) argued lost wages were pecuniary losses linked to the offense because D.C. had to care for her minor daughter and newborns	Brave argued D.C. should have mitigated by hiring childcare, which would have cost less than her wages	Court affirmed: $25,000 supported by testimony and reasonable not to entrust a 15‑year‑old mother in crisis to strangers; mitigation did not require hiring childcare
Legality of sex‑offender tier designation and mandatory sex‑offender treatment and polygraph conditions	State originally sought these conditions	Brave argued they were erroneous given plea/offense and/or not pronounced orally	Court reversed and ordered those specific conditions stricken (Conditions ee, zz, mm)
Conflict between oral sentence and written judgment (offense citation)	State acknowledged the written judgment incorrectly cited the original charged statute	Brave sought correction	Court ordered judgment corrected to cite the amended conviction statute (§ 45‑5‑207)
Assessment of PSI and public defender fees without ability‑to‑pay finding	State conceded error	Brave argued the court must determine ability to pay before imposing those costs	Court remanded for determination of Brave’s ability to pay pursuant to § 46‑8‑113, MCA

State v. Cerasani, 373 Mont. 192, 316 P.3d 819 (2014) (restitution may extend beyond elements of offense where nexus to offense or offender exists)
State v. Perkins, 350 Mont. 387, 208 P.3d 386 (2009) (upholding restitution for caretaker expenses incurred due to foster placement stemming from defendant’s conduct)
State v. Kalal, 350 Mont. 128, 204 P.3d 1240 (2009) (victim’s duty to mitigate restitution damages limited by reasonableness/practicability standard)
State v. Aragon, 374 Mont. 391, 321 P.3d 841 (2014) (standard of review for restitution as question of law and clear‑error for factual amount)
State v. Herd, 320 Mont. 490, 87 P.3d 1017 (2004) (two‑tiered review for sentences under one year of incarceration: legality and abuse of discretion)