Court Opinion

ID: 9511235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:03:05.997692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:56.584774
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COTTER
dissents and concurs.
¶52 Although I was not on the Court at the time that State v. Egelhoff was decided, I agree with Justice Nelson’s special concurrence therein and therefore join in his Dissent and Concurrence in this case. In addition, I would conclude that where a jury instruction is premised upon a statute, as Jury Instruction No. 17(a) ostensibly was here, then *363the instruction should mirror the statutory language and punctuation in all significant respects. I find it troubling here that, in its proposed Instruction 17(a) which was given by the Court, the State inserted a period after the first clause lifted from § 45-2-203, MCA, thereby giving the first clause of the statute the tone of an absolute mandate. The first sentence of the instruction appears to compel the conviction of any person who is in an intoxicated condition. This is a different message than is conveyed via the punctuation contained in the statute, and is certainly not the law.
¶53 I concur in the balance of our Opinion.