State v. Mills, 428 P.3d 834

Background

Mills answered Cozzens’s online ad to caretaker her Montana property in exchange for rent-free housing; parties communicated frequently and disputed terms.
After tensions and Cozzens’s decision to terminate the arrangement, Mills removed over $28,000 of property from Cozzens’s home and claimed he was holding items as security for an alleged $12,353.51 debt, sending a "Quit Notice."
Law enforcement recovered much of the property from a storage unit and Mills’s motorhome; some sentimental items were not recovered. Mills admitted taking property but asserted he acted under a claim of right and on advice of counsel.
Mills was charged with felony and misdemeanor theft under § 45-6-301(1), MCA; he moved to dismiss pretrial and post-verdict arguing a claim-of-right defense negated the requisite purpose to deprive.
The district court denied dismissal, the jury convicted Mills on both counts, and he appealed, challenging (1) denial of dismissal, (2) refusal to give a claim-of-right jury instruction, and (3) admission of State expert legal-opinion testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a claim-of-right (even if mistaken) as a matter of law precludes finding the specific purpose to deprive under § 45-6-301(1)	Ferrel requires that conditional withholding under a claim of right cannot establish the requisite purposeful deprivation	State: Ferrel is overbroad; claim-of-right is a factual defense but not per se exculpatory	Court overruled Ferrel to extent inconsistent with the 1973 Code; claim-of-right is a cognizable fact defense but only when defendant acted under a good-faith belief in a legal right to take specific property; denial of dismissal affirmed
Whether the court erred by refusing Mills’s proposed claim-of-right jury instructions	Mills: entitled to instructions that a reasonable/mistaken claim of right negates theft	State: claim-of-right not cognizable; in any event instructions not supported by evidence	Court: defendant entitled to instruction if evidence supports a reasonable good-faith belief in a civil right to specific property; here evidence did not support that, and the given instructions adequately stated law; no error
Whether the court abused discretion by admitting State expert (attorney) testimony on legal conclusions	Mills: attorney’s testimony invaded the court’s role and was prejudicial	State: testimony merely collateral and Mills opened the door by asserting reliance on belief	Court: admitting attorney’s legal-conclusion testimony was error, but harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt and lack of any factual support for a reasonable claim-of-right

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ferrel, 208 Mont. 456 (Mont. 1984) (earlier Montana decision limiting theft to permanent deprivation; Court here narrows/overrules parts inconsistent with modern theft statute)
State v. Doyle, 297 Mont. 270 (Mont. 1999) (construing modern theft statute to cover conditional withholding to compel payment)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (prosecution must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1991) (jury must consider evidence that negates requisite mental state when offense requires specific intent)
Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (U.S. 1994) (distinguishing crimes requiring actual awareness of legal duty)