A 21-year-old in Helena now faces a felony hate-crime charge after allegedly shoving a man and telling him to “go back to his country.”
Story Snapshot
- Prosecutors charged a Helena man with a felony under Montana’s bias-motivated intimidation law and a separate misdemeanor assault count.
- Court records say he told a man of Indian descent to “go back to his country,” and witnesses described the incident as frightening.
- Montana’s statute requires proof of harm or fear tied to bias, not punishment for words alone.
- A docket shows the case reached arraignment, and not-guilty pleas were entered.
What Prosecutors Allege Happened in Helena
Lewis and Clark County prosecutors charged 21-year-old Trysten Collins with one felony count of malicious intimidation or harassment of civil or human rights and one misdemeanor assault count. The charge stems from an August 7 encounter in downtown Helena’s Walking Mall. Court reporting says Collins told a man of Indian descent to “go back to his country.” Witnesses told police the episode was frightening and felt like an attack. Not-guilty pleas were entered at arraignment in district court.
The affidavit, as summarized in local reporting, states Collins admitted yelling the phrase after drinking at a nearby bar, saying he was angry. He denied shoving the man. The filing includes a separate misdemeanor assault charge tied to an alleged shove with both hands. The felony charge hinges on whether his conduct was motivated by national origin and caused injury or reasonable fear in the victim, as the statute requires for conviction.
What Montana Law Requires for a Bias-Motivated Felony
Montana’s malicious intimidation or harassment law makes it a felony to act because of another person’s race, creed, religion, color, national origin, or civil-rights activity and then cause bodily injury, cause reasonable fear of injury, or damage property. The law punishes conduct tied to bias, not bias alone. The statute lists a maximum penalty that can include prison time and fines upon conviction, similar to other states’ hate-crime frameworks.
Courts also treat true threats and intimidation as outside First Amendment protection. The United States Supreme Court has said that threats of violence and intimidation can be punished when proven under the proper legal standards. That backdrop helps explain why states, including Montana, connect biased motive to concrete harm or fear, rather than criminalizing words by themselves.
How the Case Moves Through Court and What We Know Now
A local court docket shows the matter has advanced to formal hearings. This indicates prosecutors filed charges and a judge set the case on the calendar. That step does not prove guilt. It does mean the case will now move through motions, discovery, and possible trial unless there is a plea or dismissal. The public can track filings and settings through Montana’s judicial access portals and the county’s posted dockets.
The reporting relies on summaries of charging documents rather than full videos or sworn transcripts. That is common early in a case. The key facts for readers are clear: prosecutors say bias and an alleged shove turned harsh words into a felony charge; the defense contests guilt; and the court will test whether the evidence proves intent, motive, and harm under Montana law. Until a verdict, the charge remains an allegation.
Why This Case Feels Bigger Than One Night Downtown
Many Americans worry that the system swings between under-enforcing real threats and overreaching on speech. This case sits in that tension. The state says the conduct mixed bias with harm or fear. Supporters of strict enforcement see protection for people targeted due to who they are. Civil libertarians warn against turning ugly words into felonies without clear proof of harm. The court’s job is to separate mere insults from intimidation backed by action under the law.
Sources:
thegatewaypundit.com, helenair.com, lccountymt.gov, doj.egovmt.com, courts.mt.gov
