State v. Parks, 310 P.3d 1088

Parks ran a March 2007 classified ad offering "24% well-secured fixed 1 yr. yield w/ Go Zone trusts" and solicited investments for Gulf Coast rebuilding projects.
Rece Cobeen invested $10,000 (Apr 2007), $35,000 (Aug 2007), and two $5,000 payments (2008) by cashier's check to "Tower Trust Two," receiving Business Purpose Notes promising 24% interest and multi-year repayment dates.
Parks was not a registered broker, the notes were not registered securities, and no prospectus or disclosure was provided; Parks conceded these omissions at trial and tacitly conceded the notes were securities.
The State charged Parks with three counts under Mont. Code Ann. § 30-10-301(1)(b) for omitting material facts: (1) failing to disclose he was not registered, (2) failing to disclose the notes were not registered, and (3) failing to provide disclosure/prospectus.
The jury convicted on all three counts; Parks moved post-verdict under the multiple charges statute (§ 46-11-410, MCA) to vacate duplicate convictions but the district court denied relief; Parks appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Parks)	Held
Whether § 46-11-410 permits convictions on all three omission counts arising from same transaction	The counts allege distinct, factually separate omissions and thus support separate convictions	The three omissions arose from the same transaction and are "included" offenses so defendant may be convicted of only one	Reversed two convictions; affirmed one — counts arose from same transaction and share identical statutory elements, so only one conviction allowed
Whether the Business Purpose Notes were "securities" (preservation)	Notes were investment contracts/notes/evidence of indebtedness and therefore securities under the Securities Act	Notes were business loans (Parks conceded at trial that they were securities; did not preserve challenge)	Not reached on merits — Parks tacitly conceded; argument unpreserved and thus not considered
Whether the statutory definition of "security" is unconstitutionally vague	State did not concede vagueness; broad definition intended to encompass varied investment instruments	Parks argued vagueness in a self-filed post-trial motion and sought plain error review	Court declined plain error review and did not decide vagueness claim
Ineffective assistance of counsel	N/A (State)	Parks alleged multiple deficiencies by trial counsel	Court dismissed claim without prejudice for postconviction proceedings — record insufficient to evaluate ineffective-assistance claim

CHS, Inc. v. Mont. Dept. of Revenue, 369 Mont. 505, 299 P.3d 813 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Goodenough, 358 Mont. 219, 245 P.3d 14 (analyzed whether offenses arose from the same transaction)
State v. Beavers, 296 Mont. 340, 987 P.2d 371 ("facts" for included-offense test means statutory elements, not case-specific facts)
Redding v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 365 Mont. 316, 281 P.3d 189 (discusses broad definition of "security" under Montana law)
Knowles v. State ex rel. Lindeen, 353 Mont. 507, 222 P.3d 595 (purpose of broker-dealer registration requirement)