Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 23. PROBATION, PAROLE, AND CLEMENCY · Part 5. Registration of Sexual and Violent Offenders
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509 (2026)

Psychosexual Evaluations And Sexual Offender Designations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 46
  3. CHAPTER 23
  4. Part 5
  5. 46-23-509 Psychosexual evaluations and sexual offender designations

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 23. PROBATION, PAROLE, AND CLEMENCY

Part 5. Registration of Sexual and Violent Offenders

Psychosexual Evaluations And Sexual Offender Designations

46-23-509. Psychosexual evaluations and sexual offender designations. (1) Prior to sentencing of a person convicted of a sexual offense, a sexual offender evaluator who has a license endorsement as provided for in 37-1-139 shall provide the court with a psychosexual evaluation report recommending one of the following levels of designation for the offender:

(a) level 1, the risk of a repeat sexual offense is low;

(b) level 2, the risk of a repeat sexual offense is moderate;

(c) level 3, the risk of a repeat sexual offense is high, there is a threat to public safety, and the sexual offender evaluator believes that the offender is a sexually violent predator.

(2) Upon sentencing the offender, the court shall:

(a) review the psychosexual evaluation report, any statement by a victim, and any statement by the offender;

(b) designate the offender as level 1, 2, or 3; and

(c) designate a level 3 offender as a sexually violent predator.

(3) An offender designated as a level 2 offender or given a level designation by another state, the federal government, or the department under subsection (5) that is determined by the court to be similar to level 2 may petition the sentencing court or the district court for the judicial district in which the offender resides to change the offender's designation if the offender has enrolled in and successfully completed the treatment phase of either the prison's sexual offender treatment program or of an equivalent program approved by the department. After considering the petition, the court may change the offender's risk level designation if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the offender's risk of committing a repeat sexual offense has changed since the time sentence was imposed. The court shall impose one of the three risk levels specified in this section.

(4) If, at the time of sentencing, the sentencing judge did not apply a level designation to a sexual offender who is required to register under this part and who was sentenced prior to October 1, 1997, the department shall designate the offender as level 1, 2, or 3 when the offender is released from confinement.

(5) If an offense is covered by 46-23-502(10)(a)(xviii), the offender registers under 46-23-504(1)(c), and the offender was given a risk level designation after conviction by another state or the federal government, the department of justice may give the offender the risk level designation assigned by the other state or the federal government. All offenders convicted in another state or by the federal government who are not currently under the supervision of the department or the youth court and were not given a risk level designation after conviction shall provide to the department of justice all prior risk assessments and psychosexual evaluations done to evaluate the offender's risk to reoffend. Any offender without a risk assessment or psychosexual evaluation shall, at the offender's expense, undergo a psychosexual evaluation with a sexual offender evaluator who has a license endorsement as provided for in 37-1-139. The results of the psychosexual evaluation may be requested by the attorney general or a county attorney for purposes of petitioning a district court to assign a risk level designation.

(6) The lack of a fixed residence is a factor that may be considered by the sentencing court or by the department in determining the risk level to be assigned to an offender pursuant to this section.

(7) Upon obtaining information that indicates that a sexual offender who is required to register under this part does not have a level 1, 2, or 3 designation, the offender, the attorney general, the county attorney that prosecuted the offender and obtained a conviction for a sexual offense, or the county attorney for the county in which the offender resides may, at any time, petition the district court that sentenced the offender for a sexual offense or the district court for the judicial district in which the offender resides to designate the offender as level 1, 2, or 3. Upon the filing of the petition, the court may order a psychosexual evaluation report at the petitioner's expense, or order that the results of all prior psychosexual evaluations be provided to all parties. The court shall provide the offender with an opportunity for a hearing prior to designating the offender. The petitioner shall provide the offender, the attorney general, and the county attorney that prosecuted the offender with notice of the petition and notice of the hearing. As provided in 46-23-506(2)(d), petitions for relief from registration under this part must be filed in the appropriate Montana district court. Orders or other documents granting relief from registration requirements that originated in other jurisdictions are not valid in Montana.

History: En. Sec. 12, Ch. 375, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 358, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 22, Sp. L. August 2002; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 313, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 24, Ch. 483, L. 2007; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 182, L. 2013; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 110, L. 2015; amd. Sec. 16, Ch. 275, L. 2017; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 481, L. 2021; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 643, L. 2023; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 102, L. 2025; amd. Sec. 11, Ch. 484, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: State v. Holt, 2011 MT 42 (Mont. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Holt, 2011 MT 42 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 36× “Indeed, the language of other statutes which cross-reference § 46-23-509, MCA, make it clear that this was the interpretation intended.”
State v. Legg, 2004 MT 26 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 16× “However, the statute further provides that "if, at the time of sentencing, the sentencing judge did not apply a level designation to a sexual offender who is required to register under this part, the department shall designate the offender as level 1, 2, or 3 when the offender…”
State v. Samples, 2008 MT 416 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 12× “Section 46-23-509(2)(c), MCA (2001). The Act requires all registered offenders to inform authorities of any changes in their address.”
State v. R. Hinman, 2023 MT 116 (Mont. 2023). · cites it 12× “Section 46-23-509(1), MCA.2 The evaluator provides a report to the district court and recommends a “level” designation for the offender, based on the results of the evaluation.”
State v. Dunning, 2008 MT 427 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 9× “Section 46-23-509(2)(c), MCA. The 1992 evaluator established that Dunning had multiple victims and multiple offenses, no guilt or remorse, a projection of responsibility on the victim, and little regard for the impact on the victim.”
State v. Brinson, 2009 MT 200 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 5× “See §46-23-509(2), MCA. The probation/parole officer who prepared the PSI reviewed both evaluations and recommended that Brinson be designated a level 2 offender and that he be sentenced to the Montana State Prison for 20 years with 10 years suspended.”
State v. Leslie Jon Claassen, 2012 MT 313 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 9× “In probation revocation hearings involving defendants previously convicted of a sexual offense, the defendants are not being sentenced for their violation of the sexual offender law, but rather their violation of the conditions of their parole or probation.”
State v. Rahn, 2008 MT 201 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 6× “Section 46-23-509(2), MCA. The sentencing court reviews the sexual offender evaluation, any statement by a victim, and any statement by the offender and then designates the defendant as a level 1, 2 or 3 offender.”
State v. Rahn, 2008 MT 201 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 6× “Section 46-23-509(2), MCA. The sentencing court reviews the 4 sexual offender evaluation, any statement by a victim, and any statement by the offender and then designates the defendant as a level 1, 2 or 3 offender.”
State v. Knudson, 2007 MT 324 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 4× “"); § 46-23-506(3), MCA (2005) (providing for relief from lifetime registration for certain offenders by filing a petition in the judicial district where the registrant "resides"); § 46-23-509(4), MCA (2005) (permitting Level 2 offenders to petition for change in designation in…”
State v. Passmore, 2010 MT 34 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 2× “The court designated Passmore a Level 1 sex offender, see § 46-23-509, MCA, and sentenced him to 35 years in the Montana State Prison, with 5 years suspended, for sexual intercourse without consent.”
State v. Hill, 2009 MT 134 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 10× “¶ 42 Section 46-23-509, MCA, provides: (2) Prior to sentencing of a person convicted of a sexual offense, the department or a sexual offender evaluator shall provide the court with a sexual offender evaluation report recommending one of the following levels of designation for…”
Show all 46 citing cases →
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(1): 4 cases
State v. R. Hinman, 2023 MT 116 (Mont. 2023). “Section 46-23-509(1), MCA.2 The evaluator provides a report to the district court and recommends a “level” designation for the offender, based on the results of the evaluation.”
State v. S. Pine, 2023 MT 172 (Mont. 2023).
State v. R. Knapp, 2022 MT 35N (Mont. 2022).
Hirt v. DOC, 2011 MT 294N (Mont. 2011).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(1)(c): 1 case
State v. S. Pine, 2023 MT 172 (Mont. 2023).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(2): 9 cases
State v. Holt, 2011 MT 42 (Mont. 2011). “Indeed, the language of other statutes which cross-reference § 46-23-509, MCA, make it clear that this was the interpretation intended.”
State v. Leslie Jon Claassen, 2012 MT 313 (Mont. 2012). “In probation revocation hearings involving defendants previously convicted of a sexual offense, the defendants are not being sentenced for their violation of the sexual offender law, but rather their violation of the conditions of their parole or probation.”
State v. Brinson, 2009 MT 200 (Mont. 2009). “See §46-23-509(2), MCA. The probation/parole officer who prepared the PSI reviewed both evaluations and recommended that Brinson be designated a level 2 offender and that he be sentenced to the Montana State Prison for 20 years with 10 years suspended.”
State v. Rahn, 2008 MT 201 (Mont. 2008). “Section 46-23-509(2), MCA. The sentencing court reviews the sexual offender evaluation, any statement by a victim, and any statement by the offender and then designates the defendant as a level 1, 2 or 3 offender.”
State v. Rahn, 2008 MT 201 (Mont. 2008). “Section 46-23-509(2), MCA. The sentencing court reviews the 4 sexual offender evaluation, any statement by a victim, and any statement by the offender and then designates the defendant as a level 1, 2 or 3 offender.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(2)(a): 3 cases
In re C.D.H., 2009 MT 8 (Mont. 2009).
State v. S. Pine, 2023 MT 172 (Mont. 2023).
In the Matter of Cdh, 2009 MT 8 (Mont. 2009).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(2)(b): 2 cases
State v. R. Hinman, 2023 MT 116 (Mont. 2023). “Section 46-23-509(1), MCA.2 The evaluator provides a report to the district court and recommends a “level” designation for the offender, based on the results of the evaluation.”
State v. Brinson, 2009 MT 200 (Mont. 2009). “See §46-23-509(2), MCA. The probation/parole officer who prepared the PSI reviewed both evaluations and recommended that Brinson be designated a level 2 offender and that he be sentenced to the Montana State Prison for 20 years with 10 years suspended.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(2)(c): 4 cases
State v. Dunning, 2008 MT 427 (Mont. 2008). “Section 46-23-509(2)(c), MCA. The 1992 evaluator established that Dunning had multiple victims and multiple offenses, no guilt or remorse, a projection of responsibility on the victim, and little regard for the impact on the victim.”
State v. Samples, 2008 MT 416 (Mont. 2008). “Section 46-23-509(2)(c), MCA (2001). The Act requires all registered offenders to inform authorities of any changes in their address.”
State v. R. Soria, 2022 MT 117N (Mont. 2022).
State v. Bjarko, 2003 MT 37N (Mont. 2003).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(3): 8 cases
State v. Holt, 2011 MT 42 (Mont. 2011). “Indeed, the language of other statutes which cross-reference § 46-23-509, MCA, make it clear that this was the interpretation intended.”
State v. Legg, 2004 MT 26 (Mont. 2004). “However, the statute further provides that "if, at the time of sentencing, the sentencing judge did not apply a level designation to a sexual offender who is required to register under this part, the department shall designate the offender as level 1, 2, or 3 when the offender…”
State v. Rahn, 2008 MT 201 (Mont. 2008). “Section 46-23-509(2), MCA. The sentencing court reviews the sexual offender evaluation, any statement by a victim, and any statement by the offender and then designates the defendant as a level 1, 2 or 3 offender.”
State v. Rahn, 2008 MT 201 (Mont. 2008). “Section 46-23-509(2), MCA. The sentencing court reviews the 4 sexual offender evaluation, any statement by a victim, and any statement by the offender and then designates the defendant as a level 1, 2 or 3 offender.”
State v. Leslie Jon Claassen, 2012 MT 313 (Mont. 2012). “In probation revocation hearings involving defendants previously convicted of a sexual offense, the defendants are not being sentenced for their violation of the sexual offender law, but rather their violation of the conditions of their parole or probation.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(3)(a): 3 cases
State v. Leslie Jon Claassen, 2012 MT 313 (Mont. 2012). “In probation revocation hearings involving defendants previously convicted of a sexual offense, the defendants are not being sentenced for their violation of the sexual offender law, but rather their violation of the conditions of their parole or probation.”
State v. Bjarko, 2003 MT 37N (Mont. 2003).
State v. Albert Gaub, 2011 MT 273N (Mont. 2011).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(3)(b): 5 cases
State v. Bullman, 2009 MT 37 (Mont. 2009).
State v. M. Mejia, 2021 MT 136N (Mont. 2021).
State v. R. Soria, 2022 MT 117N (Mont. 2022).
State v. Bryan, 386 Mont. 34 (Mont. 2016).
State v. Lamere, 2011 MT 304N (Mont. 2011).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(3)(c): 2 cases
State v. Bjarko, 2003 MT 37N (Mont. 2003).
Hirt v. Dept. of Labor Indus., 2006 MT 243N (Mont. 2006).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(4): 2 cases
State v. Knudson, 2007 MT 324 (Mont. 2007). “"); § 46-23-506(3), MCA (2005) (providing for relief from lifetime registration for certain offenders by filing a petition in the judicial district where the registrant "resides"); § 46-23-509(4), MCA (2005) (permitting Level 2 offenders to petition for change in designation in…”
State v. David Bullman, 2007 MT 288 (Mont. 2007).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(5): 6 cases
State v. Legg, 2004 MT 26 (Mont. 2004). “However, the statute further provides that "if, at the time of sentencing, the sentencing judge did not apply a level designation to a sexual offender who is required to register under this part, the department shall designate the offender as level 1, 2, or 3 when the offender…”
State v. Samples, 2008 MT 416 (Mont. 2008). “Section 46-23-509(2)(c), MCA (2001). The Act requires all registered offenders to inform authorities of any changes in their address.”
State v. Dunning, 2008 MT 427 (Mont. 2008). “Section 46-23-509(2)(c), MCA. The 1992 evaluator established that Dunning had multiple victims and multiple offenses, no guilt or remorse, a projection of responsibility on the victim, and little regard for the impact on the victim.”
State v. Tirey, 247 P.3d 701 (Mont. 2011).
State v. Bjarko, 2003 MT 37N (Mont. 2003).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(b): 1 case
Matter of B.J.B., 2025 MT 175 (Mont. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.