State v. O'Connell

2025 MT 298N
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 23, 2025
DocketDA 24-0229
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2025 MT 298N (State v. O'Connell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. O'Connell, 2025 MT 298N (Mo. 2025).

Opinion

12/23/2025

DA 24-0229 Case Number: DA 24-0229

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2025 MT 298N

STATE OF MONTANA,

Appellee and Plaintiff,

v.

RUSTY DALE O’CONNELL,

Appellant and Defendant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District, In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC 22-31 Honorable Howard F. Recht, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Britt Cotter, Cotter Law Office, P.C., Polson, Montana

For Appellee:

Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Thad Tudor, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

William Fulbright, Ravalli County Attorney, David J. Lakin, Deputy County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: October 22, 2025

Decided: December 23, 2025

Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana

Reports.

¶2 Appellant, Rusty Dale O’Connell (O’Connell), appeals from the Amended

Judgment and Commitment issued February 7, 2024, by the Twenty-First Judicial District

Court, Ravalli County, Montana. We affirm.

¶3 O’Connell was charged with theft and criminal possession of dangerous drugs

(CPDD), both felonies. He entered an Alford plea1 to the theft charge for knowingly

possessing silver stolen from Gene Huckstadt’s storage unit, which was burglarized on

September 18, 2020, and pled guilty to the CPDD charge. O’Connell was sentenced to a

net sentence of 15 years to the Department of Corrections, with 10 years suspended. As

part of his sentence, he was ordered to pay, jointly and severally with co-defendants,

$120,000 in restitution for the total estimated value of the silver stolen from the storage

1 Section 46-12-212(2), MCA, provides a procedure, arising from N.C. v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970), colloquially referred to as an Alford plea, which allows a defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting that he committed the offense if a factual basis exists, the defendant has reviewed the evidence against him, the defendant is capable of making a voluntary, knowing and intelligent choice, and the defendant believes the plea is in his best interest. Lawrence v. Guyer, 2019 MT 74, ¶ 8, 395 Mont. 222, 440 P.3d 1.

2 unit.2 O’Connell appeals the restitution portion of the judgment, asserting he was not

criminally accountable for the theft from the storage unit or the entire $120,000 in stolen

silver and the restitution order was not supported by substantial evidence.

¶4 The parties agree as to the applicable standards of review. Restitution presents a

mixed question of law and fact, which are reviewed de novo. State v. Dodge, 2017 MT

318, ¶ 6, 390 Mont. 69, 408 P.3d 510. This Court reviews a district court’s findings

regarding the amount of restitution to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. State

v. Cleveland, 2018 MT 199, ¶ 7, 392 Mont. 338, 432 P.3d 1074; State v. Patterson,

2016 MT 289, ¶ 9, 385 Mont. 334, 384 P.3d 92. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it

is not supported by substantial evidence, if the district court misapprehended the effect of

the evidence, or if review of the record leaves the Court with the firm conviction that a

mistake has been made. Cleveland, ¶ 7; State v. Pierre, 2020 MT 160, ¶ 10, 400 Mont.

283, 466 P.3d 494; State v. Conley, 2018 MT 83, ¶ 9, 391 Mont. 164, 415 P.3d 473.

¶5 On September 18, 2020, co-defendants McCready and Edens entered Huckstadt’s

storage unit and stole his silver. After McCready was arrested, at McCready’s direction,

O’Connell took possession of the silver McCready had taken to his home. O’Connell

admits he then possessed a portion of the stolen silver but asserts there is insufficient

evidence to support a finding that he possessed or controlled $120,000 worth of the stolen

silver.

2 O’Connell notes in his opening brief that this amount was reduced or offset once some of the recovered silver was released from evidence. Review of the Amended Judgment and Commitment referenced by O’Connell indicates the restitution amount to have been reduced by this offset to $81,574.10. 3 ¶6 From our review of the record, there is sufficient evidence that he possessed or

controlled at least $120,000 of the stolen silver. In his opening brief, O’Connell concedes

he “was found in possession of a suitcase containing 50 to 200 pounds of silver and several

paint cans of coins.” At the sentencing hearing, various witnesses testified, giving

conflicting evidence as to the weight and value of the stolen silver. No objection was made

to any of their testimony. Rosie Huckstadt, wife of the now deceased victim, testified that

based on records kept by her husband she believed the value of the silver stolen was

$120,000. Jesse Edens, a co-defendant, testified that he and McCready stole three safes

“that were two and a half feet by two and a half feet squared that were full, and there was

maybe a dozen bags of like quarters, dimes, silver in the footlocker that we took also.” He

described it as a truckload of silver. After taking the silver, they purchased empty paint

cans from the hardware store and filled 12 to 15 cans with the silver. When asked whether

he believed the cans of silver weighed approximately 60 pounds each, Edens agreed that

would be a reasonable assumption and stated that there had been more than 12 of these

cans. However, when now retired Detective Burlingham testified, he stated that he had

weighed the one can that had been recovered from co-defendant Edens’s residence at

around 35 pounds. At sentencing, O’Connell testified as to the sale price of silver being

approximately $28/ounce, explaining he was a silver collector and had been so since his

youth.3 During his testimony he also admitted to possessing at least seven of the paint cans

3 The Affidavit in support of the Amended Information, which was relied upon by the State in outlining its proof to support O’Connell’s Alford plea, and which was not objected to by O’Connell, notes the spot price of silver at the time to be $20.69/ounce. 4 full of silver, but estimated they weighed “anywhere from maybe 15 pounds, 20 pounds.”

Additionally, he admitted to possessing a suitcase full of silver which he estimated weighed

50 pounds or more. At the sentencing hearing, the State also admitted audio of a recorded

telephone conversation between McCready and his mother, which took place while

McCready was in custody at the Ravalli County Detention Center and O’Connell

was present with McCready’s mother at McCready’s home. Notably, McCready indicated

during the call that the suitcase full of silver—which O’Connell admits possession

of—weighed 150-200 pounds.

¶7 It is the function of the district court to weigh the testimony and determine witness

credibility. In re Kesler, 2018 MT 231, ¶ 17, 392 Mont. 540, 427 P.3d 77. When, as here,

the record contains conflicting evidence, it is the district court’s job to resolve the conflicts.

Kesler, ¶ 21.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

North Carolina v. Alford
400 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1970)
Amadeo v. Zant
486 U.S. 214 (Supreme Court, 1988)
State v. Patterson
2016 MT 289 (Montana Supreme Court, 2016)
State v. J. Dodge
2017 MT 318 (Montana Supreme Court, 2017)
State v. C. Conley
2018 MT 83 (Montana Supreme Court, 2018)
State v. R. Pierre
2020 MT 160 (Montana Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. Cleveland
2018 MT 199 (Montana Supreme Court, 2018)
In re Kesler
2018 MT 231 (Montana Supreme Court, 2018)
Throneberry v. Yazel (In re Throneberry)
432 P.3d 1071 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2018)
Lawrence v. Guyer
2019 MT 74 (Montana Supreme Court, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 MT 298N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-oconnell-mont-2025.