Montana high court weighs whether AI‑generated image counts as a 'person' under child‑sex statute

The Montana Supreme Court heard competing views on whether an AI‑generated age‑regressed photograph used in an undercover sting qualifies as a "person" under the state's child‑sex solicitation statute.

At the start of argument, defense attorney Jeremy Yellen told the court his client, Ronald William Colchic, could not be convicted under statute 455625 (2021) because the profile and image known as "Stu" were artificially generated and therefore not a "person." Yellen said the statute's plain language required the accused to believe he was communicating with an actual person and that the legislature's 2025 amendment — which Yellen described as addressing fictitious identities used by law enforcement — shows lawmakers recognized a gap in the earlier text.

"AI is not a person," Yellen told the justices, arguing the AI‑regressed photo removed the encounter from the statute's protective scope and left his client without adequate notice under the due‑process clause.

Assistant Attorney General Thad Tudtor pushed back, telling the court the district court found Assistant Chief Edwards was a real, human sender and recipient of the messages and stressing that the case law most similar to the matter before the court (including State v. Hance and Schultz, cited by the state) supports conviction where a defendant knowingly communicates with what he believes is a minor. "One hundred percent of the communications that we're dealing with here were to and from a real person," Tudtor said.

Justices repeatedly pressed both sides on where to draw the line: whether an AI‑regressed photograph differs legally from an avatar, a real old photograph, or an undercover officer deliberately posing as a child. Several justices asked hypotheticals about the practical consequences for law‑enforcement stings if the court endorsed the defense reading.

Yellen said those hypotheticals illustrate the statute's vagueness as applied in 2021 and that the 2025 amendment should inform the court's interpretation. The state urged fidelity to the district court's factual findings that the defendant engaged in repeated, sexually explicit communications and traveled to meet who he believed was a 14‑year‑old.

The court did not announce a decision; it submitted the case after questioning and will issue an opinion at a later date.