Smart pled guilty to two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. At sentencing, the District Court imposed a prohibition on drinking and drug use and on entry into bars and a requirement that Smart submit to annual polygraph testing, if requested as part of a Sex Offender Treatment or Aftercare. Both conditions were challenged on appeal.
With Justice Cotter writing the majority opinion, SCOMONT held that a district court may impose a polygraph examination requirement on a defendant for sex offender treatment purposes (citing State v. Hameline, 2008 MT 241). And, because Smart did not suffer from significant or chronic alcohol abuse, nor was there a nexus between alcohol abuse and his crimes, the Court held that the alcohol-related restrictions should be stricken.
