State v. Imlay

Decision Date23 July 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-493,90-493
Citation249 Mont. 82,813 P.2d 979
PartiesSTATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donald Glenn IMLAY, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

Billy B. Miller, Miller & Cook, Great Falls, for defendant and appellant.

Marc Racicot, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Griffing, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Patrick L. Paul, Cascade County Atty., Kim Schulke, Chief Deputy County Atty., Great Falls, for plaintiff and respondent.


Following a jury trial, the defendant, Donald Glenn Imlay, was convicted in District Court of sexual assault, a felony, in violation of Sec. 45-5-502, MCA. Based on that conviction, he was sentenced by the District Court to five years in the Montana State Prison. However, all but 35 days of that sentence were suspended, and the defendant was placed on formal probation, under certain conditions, including the condition that he enroll in and complete a sexual therapy program. When the defendant enrolled in, but was unable to complete the sexual therapy program, his suspended sentence was revoked and he was ordered imprisoned at the Montana State Prison for the remainder of his five-year term. The defendant appeals from the District Court's order revoking his suspended sentence. We reverse the order of the District Court.

On appeal, the defendant raises several issues. We find the following issue, as restated by this Court, to be controlling:

Can a criminal defendant, as a condition of a suspended sentence, be compelled to admit that he is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused and convicted?


On May 9, 1989, the State of Montana was granted leave to file an Information charging the defendant with three counts of sexual assault, a felony. On September 5, 1989, that Information was amended so that the acts complained of were combined into one count. The basis for the Information was the allegation that on April 11, 1989, the defendant fondled the vaginal area of a seven-year-old girl while she was present at his Great Falls grocery store. The Information was based on statements made by the girl to her teacher after she arrived at school several hours late.

This case went to trial on September 11, 1989, and the jury returned its verdict on September 13, 1989, finding the defendant guilty of the crime charged.

Prior to sentencing, the usual pre-sentence investigation was conducted, including a psychological evaluation of the defendant. As a result of that investigation, the District Court found that the defendant was a 56-year-old widower who had raised four adult children and had an extensive history of full-time employment. He had no prior criminal record, nor was there any prior history of any complaints of similar conduct by the defendant.

The psychologist who examined the defendant, as part of the pretrial investigation, concluded that he was suffering from post- traumatic stress syndrome and was in a severely depressed state of mind. He recommended that the defendant not be incarcerated, but that he be involved in a mental health therapeutic program with psychiatric work and counseling.

Based upon its pre-sentence investigation, the District Court found that the defendant was not a dangerous person, that his offense was an isolated incident, and that it would not be repeated in the future. The court also found that the defendant was suffering from medical problems, and that incarceration in the State Prison was not an appropriate penalty.

The defendant's sentencing hearing was held on October 17, 1989. On that same date, the District Court sentenced the defendant to five years in the Montana State Prison. However, execution of the sentence was suspended, except for the 35 days he had already served in the Cascade County Jail. He was placed on formal supervised probation under the rules and regulations of the Adult Probation and Parole Bureau and was ordered to enroll in a sexual therapy program at his own expense, and to continue in that program until it was no longer deemed necessary by his therapist. The specific sentence provision regarding sexual therapy was as follows:

The defendant is to immediately enroll in a sexual therapy program at his own expense and continue said program until his therapist deems further counseling and therapy unnecessary. The Court would recommend that the defendant obtain his therapy at the sexual offender treatment program located in Helena, Montana.

As conditions of his suspended sentence, the defendant was also ordered to pay any counseling costs incurred by the victim and prohibited from being around children unless another adult was present.

On June 8, 1990, the County Attorney petitioned the District Court for revocation of the defendant's suspended sentence for two reasons: (1) the State contended that the defendant was not gainfully employed; and (2) the State alleged that the defendant had not completed the sexual treatment program which was a condition of his suspended sentence.

The defendant denied violating the terms of his suspended sentence, and an evidentiary hearing was conducted on August 31, 1990. At that hearing, the defendant's probation officer, and the counselor to whom he had been referred for sexual therapy, testified. The defendant also testified on his own behalf.

The defendant testified that at that time he was living with his mother in Absarokee where he had moved following trial because he no longer had a business, a job, or any income.

He had interviewed for and sought work as an electrician, and as a custodian, but was unable to satisfy the physical requirements for either job. He suffered from high blood pressure and degenerative joint disease.

When unable to find employment, the defendant had applied for vocational rehabilitation through the State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. After an independent medical examination, he had apparently qualified for those services and was being retrained by SRS to do leather work which he was performing at his mother's home. He had sold some of the work and had orders for more items which he had been unable to complete.

He testified that in order to comply with the court's order regarding enrollment in a sex offender program he contacted his probation officer, who referred him to Mike Sullivan, a counselor in Billings, Montana. He scheduled and attended a number of counseling sessions, but was finally advised that he did not qualify for Sullivan's treatment program because he would not admit that he was guilty of the crime of which he had been charged and convicted. He then talked to Ron Silvers, the director of the sexual offender program in Helena, and was told that he would not be admitted to that program either.

Michael Sullivan testified that he is a licensed clinical social worker practicing in Billings, and was director of a program known as South Central Treatment Associates. He has a bachelor's degree in psychology, a master's degree in associate work, and is a licensed social worker in the State of Montana. At the time of the defendant's hearing, Sullivan had been involved The defendant first saw Mr. Sullivan, by referral from his probation officer, on November 20, 1989, and saw him on five subsequent occasions over the next six months. Each appointment was scheduled by the defendant. The defendant attended every scheduled appointment. He was described by Sullivan as pleasant, friendly, never angry or abusive, and always punctual.

in the treatment of sexual offenders for approximately five years.

Sullivan performed a series of tests on the defendant. There were no indications in those tests that the defendant was capable of violent conduct. However, from those tests and his contacts with the defendant, Sullivan formed the impression that the defendant was not amenable to outpatient sexual offender treatment because he did not admit that he committed a sexual offense. Sullivan testified that the defendant's denial made it impossible for him to treat him in their program. He also testified that there was no other outpatient sexual therapy program in the State of Montana which would treat a sexual offender who denied that he was guilty of sexual misconduct.

He confirmed that after the defendant had been rejected from his program, the defendant had sought treatment from Ron Silvers at the sexual therapy program in Helena, and that he (Sullivan) had been contacted by Silvers to determine why the defendant had been unacceptable for the Billings program.

Sullivan recommended a form of inpatient treatment, which is more structured and continuous, because in such a program it is more difficult for a patient to maintain defensive postures, such as denial. He testified that the only inpatient treatment program in the State of Montana was the one at the Montana State Prison.

Based upon the foregoing evidence, the District Court found that the State's complaint about the defendant's lack of employment was not well founded. The court found that the defendant was making a bona fide effort to maintain employment and was actively pursuing vocational rehabilitation.

However, regarding the State's second basis for its petition to revoke the suspended sentence, the court made the following conclusion:

The Court concludes that the defendant has violated the condition of his suspended sentence by not enrolling (not being amenable to treatment and hence, not acceptable into an out-patient treatment program) in a sex offender treatment program and said violation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

... Because the only viable alternative is an inpatient treatment program, the Court concludes that the defendant's suspended sentence must be revoked and the defendant ordered to serve FIVE (5) years in the Montana State Prison with credit for 35 days.

* * * * * *

It is recommended to the Warden of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • Lile v. McKune
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • September 16, 1998
    ...It is also recognized that an admission after the exhaustion of the direct appeal may still be incriminating. State of Montana v. Imlay, 249 Mont. 82, 813 P.2d 979 (1991) (post-conviction remedies would be rendered meaningless by compelled admission of guilt), cert. granted, 503 U.S. 905, 1......
  • Dzul v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • October 31, 2002 a sex offender program that required participants to disclose their offense history as a condition of probation); State v. Imlay, 249 Mont. 82, 813 P.2d 979, 985 (1991) (holding that defendant's probation could not be revoked upon failure to complete sex therapy where basis for his failu......
  • In re Personal Restraint of Dyer
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 7, 2008
    ...of the question whether the state may constitutionally condition the privilege of parole on self-incrimination. See State v. Imlay, 249 Mont. 82, 813 P.2d 979 (1991). ¶ 87 The question presented in Imlay was remarkably similar to the one here: Whether an inmate could be compelled, as a prer......
  • State v. Iowa Dist. Court For Webster County
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • August 23, 2011
    ...cannot be forced to incriminate themselves merely because it advances a governmental need. Id. at 852; see also State v. Imlay, 249 Mont. 82, 813 P.2d 979, 985 (1991) (finding “the better reasoned decisions are those decisions which protect the defendant's constitutional right against self-......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Therapy for convicted sex offenders: pursuing rehabilitation without incrimination.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 89 No. 1, September 1998
    • September 22, 1998
    ...29 (Wis. 1995); State v. Gleason, 576A.2d 1246 (Vt. 1990). (5) See, e.g., Gilfillen v. State, 582 N.E.2d 821 (Ind. 1991); State v. Imlay, 813 P.2d 979 (Mont. (6) Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 (1969). (7) See Imlay, 813 P.2d at 985; Gilfillen, 582 N.E.2d at 824. (8) See Glickstein v. ......
  • Cognitive Restructuring Through Law: a Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approach to Sex Offenders and the Plea Process
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 15-03, March 1992
    • Invalid date
    ...Efficient Operation of the Plea-Bargaining System, 12 Int'l Rev. L. and Econ. 69 (1992). 67. The disincentive is noted in State v. Imlay, 813 P.2d 979, 983 (Mont. 1991), cert, granted, 112 S. Ct. 1260 68. See Robert M. Wettstein, Psychiatric Perspectives on Washington's Sexually Violent Pre......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT