Case Citation
Legal Case Name

State v. Thompson Case Brief

Montana Supreme Court1990Docket #1131275
792 P.2d 1103 243 Mont. 28 47 State Rptr. 1065 1990 Mont. LEXIS 166 Criminal Law Criminal Procedure

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: A high school principal was charged with sexual intercourse without consent. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of charges, holding that his threat to prevent a student from graduating did not meet the strict statutory requirements of “force” or “imminent threat” necessary to negate consent.

Legal Significance: This case exemplifies the principle of strict construction in criminal law. It holds that courts must apply the plain meaning of statutory elements and cannot expand the definition of a crime to encompass conduct not explicitly proscribed by the legislature, even when the conduct is morally reprehensible.

State v. Thompson Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

The defendant, Gerald Roy Thompson, was a high school principal and basketball coach. He was charged with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent involving a student, identified as Jane Doe. The charging information and supporting affidavit alleged that on two separate occasions, Thompson forced Doe to perform oral sex by threatening that she would not graduate from high school. The affidavit asserted that these threats caused Doe “great psychological pain and fear,” compelling her submission. The alleged acts occurred between September 1986 and June 1987, and Doe reported them after her graduation. Thompson moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the facts alleged in the affidavit were insufficient to establish probable cause for the element of “without consent” as defined by Montana statute. The trial court granted the motion, and the State appealed.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a threat to prevent a student from graduating from high school constitute either “force” or a “threat of imminent death, bodily injury, or kidnapping” sufficient to satisfy the “without consent” element of the crime of sexual intercourse without consent under Montana law?

No. The court affirmed the dismissal of the charges, holding that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a threat to prevent a student from graduating from high school constitute either “force” or a “threat of imminent death, bodily injury, or kidnapping” sufficient to satisfy the “without consent” element of the crime of sexual intercourse without consent under Montana law?

Conclusion

This case serves as a precedent for the strict construction of criminal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud

Legal Rule

Under Montana Code Annotated § 45-5-501, the element of "without consent" for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis

Legal Analysis

The Montana Supreme Court engaged in a strict statutory interpretation of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The court affirmed dismissal of sexual intercourse without consent charges because
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occ

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+