Who: Open to the public

Where: MSU Strand Union Building

When: 10:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m.

Cost: Free

CLE credit: 1.50 general (anticipated)

Details: Join us for oral argument before the Montana Supreme Court of State v. Hubber, DA-24-0386. CLE credit is received by attendance at oral argument. Those seeking CLE credit must check in at the beginning of oral argument. The case information is as follows:

Case Background

Jay Steven Hubber, a bail bondsman, appeals his convictions for deliberate homicide by accountability and aggravated burglary. The charges arose after Hubber and Nicholas Jaeger entered William Harris's home to arrest David Sandoval, for whom Hubber had posted bond. During the confrontation, Jaeger shot and killed Harris, the homeowner.

Issues on Appeal

Jury Instructions on Mental States

Hubber contends that the district court gave incorrect jury instructions defining "purposely" and "knowingly," which unconstitutionally lowered the State's burden of proof. The court instructed jurors that a person acts "purposely" when engaging in certain conduct, rather than when intending to cause a specific result. For deliberate homicide by accountability, Hubber argues the State must prove he had the conscious object to cause Harris's death, not merely to engage in conduct that led to that outcome. The State responds that the instructions, when read together with the elements of the offenses, adequately conveyed the required findings and any error was harmless.

Sufficiency of Evidence

Hubber argues insufficient evidence supports his conviction for deliberate homicide by accountability because the State failed to prove he and Jaeger agreed to commit deliberate homicide or that Hubber acted with the purpose to facilitate Harris's death. The State counters that substantial evidence showed Hubber brought weapons and Jaeger to the home, initiated the violent confrontation, threatened to shoot Harris, and provided Jaeger with the gun used in the shooting.

Bondsman's Privilege

Hubber asserts that the district court violated his right to present a defense by refusing to instruct the jury that Montana law recognizes a bondsman's privilege to enter premises to arrest principals who have skipped bail. He argues Montana statutes and common law authorize such entries, and his contract with Sandoval, which listed Harris's address, gave him authority to be there. The State maintains that while bondsmen may arrest principals under certain circumstances, Montana law does not permit them to enter third parties' homes without consent, as such authority would violate constitutional privacy protections and exceed even law enforcement's powers.