State v. Joseph Carri Robertson, 336 P.3d 367

Background

Carri and Joseph Robertson, members of the Basin Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD), received suspension letters (Dec. 28, 2011) stating they were "not allowed to enter any property owned by the BVFD."
On Jan. 14, 2012 the Robertsons used member access codes to enter the BVFD fire hall, took two unassigned fire jackets, cones, and flares; they returned the cones but not the jackets until after a warrant and confrontation.
The State charged both with criminal trespass (for entering the fire hall) and theft (for the jackets, cones, and flares); cases were tried together before a jury in April 2013 resulting in guilty verdicts on both counts.
Post-trial, the court sentenced each Robertson to concurrent suspended jail and fines, ordered restitution and costs, and included in the written judgment a reporting condition requiring reporting any contact with law enforcement to the County Attorney within 48 hours.
On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed (1) sufficiency of evidence for trespass and theft, (2) whether unpreserved trial issues should be reviewed, and (3) whether written judgments matched the oral sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Robertsons)	Held
Sufficiency — Trespass: whether entry was unlawful	Board suspended membership and revoked entry privilege by written suspension	As BVFD members they were privileged to enter; Board lacked authority under by‑laws to suspend or ban entry	Vacated trespass convictions — by‑laws did not authorize Board to suspend or revoke entry; no lawful basis to prove unlawful entry
Sufficiency — Theft: whether taking jackets was theft	Jackets were inventory for new members; taking without permission and failing to report/return shows intent to deprive BVFD	Claimed assistance to motorist justified taking cones/flares; did not admit jackets were taken with intent to deprive	Affirmed theft convictions — evidence supported unauthorized control and intent to deprive (jackets withheld until confronted)
Review of unpreserved claims (jury adjournment, judge hallway inquiry, jury pool composition)	Court should decline review absent timely objection; plain error standard applies	Some claims implicated rights (presence, jury selection, adjournment) and deserve review despite no timely objection	Declined review — defendants failed to timely object; plain error not shown; preserved‑issue rule enforced
Written judgment condition — reporting law enforcement contact	State defends inclusion and promises not to enforce unfairly	Condition was not orally announced and substantially interferes with livelihood (frequent law‑enforcement contact)	Vacated/ordered removed — condition materially increased liberty/property burden and did not conform to oral sentence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Torres, 2013 MT 101 (Mont. 2013) (preservation of issues and plain error standard)
State v. Criswell, 2013 MT 177 (Mont. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Matt, 2008 MT 444 (Mont. 2008) (defendant's right to be present at critical stages)
State v. Reim, 2014 MT 108 (Mont. 2014) (analysis of unpreserved right‑to‑presence claims and need for plain error or IAC review)
State v. Tapson, 2001 MT 292 (Mont. 2001) (right to presence; judge contacting jurors outside defendant's presence)
State v. Kennedy, 2004 MT 53 (Mont. 2004) (right to presence where judge privately questioned a juror about possible misconduct)
State v. LaMere, 2000 MT 45 (Mont. 2000) (fair cross‑section requirement and jury selection procedures)
State v. Ugalde, 2013 MT 308 (Mont. 2013) (motion for new trial does not substitute for a timely objection)
State v. Goff, 2011 MT 6 (Mont. 2011) (written judgment conditions that increase liberty/property require notice and opportunity to respond)
State v. Grace, 2001 MT 22 (Mont. 2001) (objection must be made as soon as grounds are apparent)