State v. Mills
Annotate this Case
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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.