Dinkshooter
Well-known member
Best $180 I ever spent
Outside Article on the Crazies - A couple Hunttalkers get famous
- Thread starter Irrelevant
- Start date
RobG
Well-known member
I'll add a little to JLS's comments. What I was cited for was Criminal Trespass. If you look at the code it is pretty specific, essentially if you enter a posted property you have committed Criminal Trespass. That part is pretty clear, and there was no dispute that I walked into a posted property. However, there are two ways to be found not guilty.
The first way is to prove that the landowner did not have the right to post the trail. This would mean putting my criminal trial on hold and suing the landowner in civil court. The court would decide whether the trail meets the criteria for a prescriptive easement (basically five years of public use with the landowner's knowledge, but without his permission). If it does, then the question is settled - the trail is public. If it doesn't, it is also settled - the trail is private. While this way would settle the question, it is not a simple thing at all and it is extremely expensive - hundreds of thousands of dollars. I didn't want to pursue this option until we investigated the facts very carefully. We can always do this later as the question is unrelated to my trespass case.
The second way to be found not guilty is to show you didn't have "intent" to break the law. With the first way shifted to the back burner, this would have been my only other option (besides pleading guilty or no contest). Conviction requires two things: breaking of the law in fact, and intent to break the law. For example, if your friend tells you to go to his house and bring back his TV set, and you accidentally go into his neighbor's house and grab their TV set instead, you aren't guilty of robbery because you had not "intent" to break the law. However, just because you aren't guilty doesn't mean it is legal to take the neighbor's TV.
So guilt or not rests entirely on what my mindset was at the time I entered the property. What a screwed up thing criminal law is - the facts don't really matter, only what I knew or believed at the time. The next person would also have to show he also did not believe that the signs were legal. Of course nobody explained this to me until we were about ready to go to trial...
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Unless Montana has a very weird approach to res judicata, an appellate judgement that a prescriptive easement existed would be binding on the county going forward. Of course that doesn't prevent local officials from being jerks, but it would prevent future findings of trespass of that property.
RobG
Well-known member
i don’t know what res judicatory is but see my post above. My trial wouldn’t have been about the existence of a prescriptive easement. It’s pretty screwy.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Ahhh, I hadn't gotten to your longer explanation at the time I replied. If your "victory" would have been based upon your intent, then you are correct, no relevant precident.
FWIW - res judicata is a $10 word you get to use after you pay $75,000 for law school, but my favorite $10 lawyer word is, "notwithstanding", definitely worth the $75k to use that one every day. It means the matter has already been judged (and therefor cannot be further litigated by a party).
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Thanks Rob. it's like a crash course in law around here...
Similar threads
