State v. O'CONNELL, 261 P.3d 1042

O'Connell and husband ran a common theft scheme, stealing expended brass casings from The Hunting Shack and selling them for cash; total 33,815 pounds stolen, $32,179.25 paid to them.
She pled guilty to Accountability for Theft (Common Scheme) under 45-2-301 and 45-6-301(1)(a), MCA (2007).
District Court deferred imposition of sentence for two years, with conditions including prohibitions on bars, casinos, and alcohol consumption; restitution set at $159,606.80 for replacement value plus lost profits, determined by the Hunting Shack manager.
The Hunting Shack manager used invoices from different shipments and failed to explain how calculations were derived; evidence suggested profits were not actually affected and the multiplier lacked support.
State conceded the lost-profits portion was not supported by substantial evidence, and the Court reversed the lost-profits portion and remanded for restitution recalculation based on replacement value; bar-entry prohibition was upheld.
Court remanded for recalculation of restitution consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lost profits may be included in restitution along with replacement value.	O'Connell argues lost profits are improper and the evidence is speculative.	State contends lost profits are allowable if based on reasonable methods.	Partial reversal; lost-profits portion reversed and remanded for recalculation based on replacement value.
Whether barring O'Connell from entering bars is an appropriate sentencing condition.	O'Connell argues the bar restriction is unrelated and overly broad.	Bar restriction bears nexus to her drug history and rehabilitation.	Affirmed the bar prohibition as a valid, rehabilitative condition.

Kalal v. Kalal, 350 Mont. 128 (2009 MT 103) (losses recoverable with reasonable methods; relevance to pecuniary loss)
Benoit v. State, 51 P.3d 495 (2002 MT 166) (lost profits recoverable if supported by best evidence available)
Stensvad v. Miners & Merchants Bank, 640 P.2d 1303 (1982 MT) (lost profits admissible if not speculative)
Trifad Ent., Inc. v. Anderson, 36 P.3d 363 (2001 MT 227) (possible damages for future income and profits included in restitution)
Brotherton v. State, 182 P.3d 88 (2008 MT 119) (upheld alcohol prohibition due to defendant's history)
Kroll v. State, 95 P.3d 717 (2004 MT 203) (upheld casino prohibition due to nexus to offense)
Greensweight v. State, 187 P.3d 613 (2008 MT) (upheld alcohol prohibition with drug history)
Ashby v. State, 179 P.3d 1164 (2008 MT 83) (nexus requirement for sentencing conditions)