State v. Mills

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s judgment of conviction of felony theft and misdemeanor theft, as defined by Mont. Code Ann. 45-6-301(1), holding that the district court erred in allowing the State to present inadmissible expert legal opinion testimony but that the error was harmless.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court (1) erroneously denied his pretrial and post-verdict motions to dismiss based on the principle that a claim of right precludes a purposeful deprivation of property under the statute, (2) erroneously failed to instruct the jury on the claim-of-right defense, and (3) erroneously allowed the state to present expert testimony on matters of law. Regarding Defendant’s first two assignments of error, the Supreme Court held that the district court committed no error. And although the district court erroneously admitted inadmissible expert legal opinion testimony, the Supreme Court held that the error was harmless under the circumstances of this case. View "State v. Mills" on Justia Law