Limitations on Pretrial Credit and Evidence-Tampering Conspiracy in Prison Escape Cases

Introduction

State of Montana v. Darren Charles DeMarie (2025 MT 115) arises from a bench trial in Powell County where the defendant, already serving a long homicide sentence, was convicted of two conspiracy counts: Conspiracy to Commit Escape and Conspiracy to Commit Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence. DeMarie appeals three rulings:

That his sentence was lawful despite references to his religious beliefs.
That the evidence was sufficient to support a conspiracy to tamper with evidence.
That he was not entitled to pretrial credit for time served on his new charges while in custody on his prior sentence.

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed all aspects of the district court’s decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held:

Sentencing references to DeMarie’s religious or political beliefs did not render the sentence illegal or unconstitutional because no timely, specific objection was made, and the sentence fell within statutory limits.
The record contained ample proof that DeMarie, fearing discovery of a hidden cellphone with escape‐plan evidence, conspired with an accomplice to delete or destroy data, satisfying the elements of tampering conspiracy.
Under § 46-18-201(9), MCA, pretrial credit applies only when the defendant is actually detained pursuant to the new charges. DeMarie remained in custody solely on his prior sentence, so he earned no new credit.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Lenihan (1979): Any sentence exceeding statutory maximum or imposed illegally may be reviewed on appeal even if unobjected to.
Killam v. Salmonsen and State v. Mendoza (2021): Defendants held on warrants for unrelated offenses are entitled to credit for simultaneous custody on new charges.
Boyland v. Salmonsen (2023): No credit for time served on subsequent charges when the defendant was never arrested or detained pursuant to those charges.
State v. Pillans (2025): Time served on unrelated detention does not yield credit for the original charge unless custody is expressly tied to it.
State v. Daniels (2019): Elements of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence include the defendant’s belief an investigation is pending or imminent.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied de novo review to each issue:

Sentencing and First Amendment: The Court refused to entertain an as-applied constitutional challenge raised for the first time on appeal. DeMarie’s brief interjections during pronouncement did not constitute specific objections. His sentence—8 years per count—fell below the 10-year statutory maximum for conspiracy to escape (§ 45-7-306(3)(b), MCA).
Sufficiency of Evidence for Tampering Conspiracy: Viewing the recorded calls and witness testimony in the light most favorable to the State, a rational fact-finder could conclude DeMarie believed official proceedings were imminent, and he took concrete steps (directing deletion of accounts, using passwords) to destroy or impede evidence.
Pretrial Credit: The plain language of § 46-18-201(9), MCA, requires the sentencing court to credit time served “before trial or sentencing” only when “incarceration” is attributable to the new charge. DeMarie never faced a warrant or bond on the escape and evidence-tampering counts, so his continuous confinement was solely under the homicide judgment.

Potential Impact

This decision clarifies two critical points:

Counsel must lodge specific, timely objections at sentencing to preserve as-applied constitutional claims.
Pretrial credit statutes do not award days served in prison on unrelated, prior convictions unless the defendant is also detained on the new charges.

Future cases will thus hinge on whether custody is “pursuant to” a given charge, and on strict notice rules for sentencing objections.

Complex Concepts Simplified

De novo review: The appellate court re-examines legal issues from scratch, without deferring to the lower court.
As-applied vs. facial challenge: A facial challenge attacks a statute’s validity in all circumstances. An as-applied challenge argues the statute was unconstitutional when applied to a particular defendant’s facts.
Pretrial credit: Judges must reduce a defendant’s sentence by the number of days he spent in custody before trial or sentencing, but only if that custody is on the very charges for which he is being sentenced.
Conspiracy to tamper: Requires an agreement to destroy or conceal evidence, plus an overt act furthering that agreement, done in the belief an investigation is pending or imminent.

Conclusion

State v. DeMarie affirms three key legal principles:

Unobjected sentencing remarks, even if touching on religion, will not render a lawful sentence illegal absent specific preservation.
Evidence-tampering conspiracies are proven when defendants take active steps to destroy or hide incriminating materials, believing investigations are pending.
Pretrial credit is reserved for custody directly tied to the charges being sentenced; continuous confinement on prior convictions does not earn credit on subsequent charges.

This ruling thus tightens procedural safeguards around sentencing objections and refines the interplay between concurrent detentions and credit for time served.