State v. K. Rowe - Sentence Condition Affirmed

Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Combined Opinion

                  by Bidegaray](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10838934/state-v-k-rowe/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 7, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. K. Rowe

Montana Supreme Court

• Citations: 2026 MT 75N
• Docket Number: DA 24-0014
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Nature of Suit: Direct Appeal

• Disposition: Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Combined Opinion

                        by Bidegaray

04/07/2026

DA 24-0014
Case Number: DA 24-0014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2026 MT 75N

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KENNETH WESLEY ROWE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DC 21-0039
Honorable Thomas Pardy, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Tyler T. Dugger, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana

For Appellee:

Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Cori Losing, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Scott Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney, Sarah Hyde, Deputy
County Attorney, Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: March 18, 2026

Decided: April 7, 2026

Filed:

---

Clerk
Justice Katherine M. Bidegaray 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 Kenneth Wesley Rowe appeals his November 2023 Judgment and Sentence in the

Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. The only issue he raises is whether

Condition 29 of his sentence, which, as pertinent, says that he shall not possess “any

material that describes or depicts human nudity,” is unreasonable, overly broad, and has no

nexus to him or the offenses of which he was convicted.

¶3 On June 21, 2022, the State charged Rowe by second amended information with

eight counts of felony sex offenses and one count each misdemeanor surreptitious visual

observation or recordation and criminal production of dangerous drugs. The conduct

underlying the charges took place over the course of a year between 2018 and 2019.

Law enforcement later discovered over 500 videos and 100 photos of Rowe’s girlfriend’s

minor daughter (Jane Doe), including depictions of her in states of undress, and myriad

internet searches on Rowe’s computers for topics related to pornography, teen sexual

abuse, and the effects of various sedatives including chloroform.

¶4 In December 2022, Rowe entered a plea agreement pursuant to which he agreed to

plead guilty to one count each of SIWC (digitally penetrating Jane Doe’s vulva while she

was under the age of 16 and Rowe was 4 or more years older than her); sexual assault

2
(touching Jane Doe’s vagina, breasts, and buttocks while she was sleeping and while she

was under the age of 16 and Rowe was 4 or more years older than her); sexual assault

(while Jane Doe was sleeping, placing her hand on his penis for the purpose of masturbation

while she was under the age of 16 and Rowe was 4 or more years older than her); and

sexual abuse of children (possessing visual or print medium, including a medium by use of

electronic communication, in which a child is engaged in sexual conduct by possessing

videos of Jane Doe, who was under the age of 18, naked in the shower or bathtub or in a

state of undress in her bedroom and of possessing videos of two other females, both under

the age of 18, in a state of undress in Jane Doe’s bedroom). In exchange for Rowe’s guilty

pleas to those four charges, the State promised to dismiss the remaining charges and make

a specific sentencing recommendation. At his change of plea, Rowe admitted to the

conduct underlying the offenses to which he entered guilty pleas. Prior to sentencing,

Rowe submitted to a presentence investigation (PSI) and psychosexual evaluation.

¶5 The PSI designated Rowe a Level II sexual offender with a moderate risk to reoffend

and recommended sentencing Condition 29—prohibiting “any” depiction of human nudity

without prior written approval of his Probation and Parole officer and therapist.

At sentencing, Rowe objected to Condition 29 as unreasonably overbroad. The District

Court disagreed and imposed Condition 29.

¶6 Rowe forwards the same arguments regarding Condition 29 on appeal—that

prohibiting his possessing any depictions of nudity encompasses nudity appearing in

medical records, educational materials, fashion magazine advertisements, and fine art, like

Michealangelo’s David or DaVinci’s Vitruvian Man. He claims that the sentencing

3
condition has no nexus to him or the offenses for which he was convicted. Rowe argues

that the District Court should have narrowed the condition to prohibit possession of only

“sexually explicit” images, which, notably, he concedes would be a reasonable restriction.

¶7 First, we disagree that there is no nexus between Condition 29 and the sexual

offenses of which Rowe was convicted by guilty plea. We will affirm a legal sentencing

restriction or condition so long as it “has some correlation or connection—i.e., nexus—to

the underlying offense or the offender himself.” State v. Johnson, 2023 MT 143, ¶ 7,

413 Mont. 114, 533 P.3d 335 (citing State v. Melton, 2012 MT 84, ¶ 18, 364 Mont. 482,

276 P.3d 900); §§ 46-18-201(4), -202(1), -801(1), MCA (legal sentencing conditions). We

will reverse only if the restriction or condition is “overly broad or unduly punitive, or if the

required nexus is absent or exceedingly tenuous.” Johnson, ¶ 7. It is evident from the

record here that Rowe possessed images of Jane Doe that he obtained by recording her in

states of undress and while he committed the charged sexual offenses. Rowe admitted at

sentencing that he struggled with sex addiction and inappropriate ideation. His counsel

noted Rowe was forthright in his psychosexual evaluation regarding his sexual paraphilia

diagnosis. Prohibiting Rowe’s access to depictions of nudity without prior State and

therapist approval is reasonably related to Rowe and to the sexual offenses he committed,

which included his keeping hundreds of depictions of nudity, some of which included him

masturbating next to Jane Doe in deep sleep in various states of undress.

¶8 Second, Condition 29 does not categorically prohibit Rowe from possessing images

of the naked David or Vitruvian Man. Instead, Condition 29 provides an exception to its

prohibition against possessing depictions of human nudity if pre-approved in writing by

4
Rowe’s probation officer and treatment provider. That tailored exception prevents the

sentencing restriction from being unreasonably overbroad or unduly prohibiting otherwise

lawful conduct. Pre-screening what images Rowe may possess is also identical in effect to

what Rowe concedes would be a reasonable sentencing condition—prohibiting his having

“sexually explicit” depictions of human nudity. Given the nature of Rowe’s offenses, and

to further the rehabilitative goals underlying Montana’s criminal sentencing policy, it is

reasonable to subject Rowe’s possession of visual materials and depictions of human

nudity to pre-approval by his probation supervisor and treatment provider. Condition 29

bears the requisite nexus to Rowe and his offenses and is not overly broad or unduly

punitive.

¶9 We decide this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c)

of our Internal Operating Rules. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question

controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review.

¶10 Affirmed.

/S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY

We Concur:

/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

5