Montana Domestic Violence Guide

No Injury, No Fear: Testing the Elements of PFMA

The State must prove bodily injury or reasonable apprehension of it. Both are defined broadly.

Written by

Licensed Montana attorney and co-founder of A&M Law. 18 years of experience as lead counsel in 50+ jury and bench trials. A Certified Mediator and Certified Guardian ad Litem focusing on family law, criminal defense, and DUI defense.

18 yearsReviewed by Misty GaubatzLast reviewed: September 13, 2026

Key Takeaways: No Injury, No Fear: Testing the Elements of PFMA

PFMA requires bodily injury or reasonable apprehension of bodily injury (MCA § 45-5-206(1)). Without one of them there is no offense.
Bodily injury means physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition, and includes mental illness or impairment (MCA § 45-2-101(5)).
The definition does not require a visible mark or medical treatment, so the absence of a photo or a record does not end a case by itself.
Apprehension must be reasonable. The question is not only whether the other person was afraid.
Unlike ordinary assault, the PFMA statute has no version based only on insulting or provoking contact.
These elements are contested through the recordings, photographs, and prior statements, not by confronting the other person.

A partner or family member assault (PFMA) charge requires the State to prove one of two results: bodily injury, or reasonable apprehension of bodily injury. If it can prove neither beyond a reasonable doubt, the charge fails. That is a real defense, but it is narrower than it sounds, because Montana defines bodily injury to include pain alone. This page is part of our Montana Domestic Violence Guide and follows from the overview of PFMA defenses.

The Two Results the Statute Requires

MCA § 45-5-206(1) describes three ways to commit PFMA:

purposely or knowingly causing bodily injury to a partner or family member;
negligently causing bodily injury to a partner or family member with a weapon; or
purposely or knowingly causing reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in a partner or family member.

The charging document should say which version the State is relying on. Sometimes it charges more than one in the alternative. The defense starts by identifying which result the State has to prove and what evidence it has for it.

What Bodily Injury Means

MCA § 45-2-101(5) says: "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition and includes mental illness or impairment. Three things follow from that wording.

Pain is enough. The statute does not require a bruise, a cut, swelling, or treatment.
It still has to be proved. When there is no visible injury, the proof may be a person's statement that it hurt. The reliability of that statement is then the issue.
Serious bodily injury is a different term. It has its own definition (MCA § 45-2-101(66)) and belongs to more serious charges.

Our page on what bodily injury means goes through the definition in more detail.

What Reasonable Apprehension Means

The third version of PFMA needs no contact at all. The State must prove that you purposely or knowingly caused the other person to apprehend bodily injury, and that the apprehension was reasonable. The general definitions statute opens by saying that, unless otherwise specified, words in the criminal code are taken in the objective standard and not the subjective (MCA § 45-2-101).

In practice that produces two questions. Did the person actually expect to be hurt? And would a reasonable person in that position have expected it? Raised voices, an argument, or a slammed door do not answer either question alone. What was said and done, how close the people were, and what happened next all matter. See reasonable apprehension in a PFMA case.

PFMA Has No "Offensive Contact" Version

Montana's ordinary assault statute has a subsection for a person who "purposely or knowingly makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with any individual" (MCA § 45-5-201(1)(c)). The PFMA statute does not contain that language. Its three subsections all require bodily injury or reasonable apprehension of it.

That difference can matter when the evidence shows a touch, a grab of a sleeve, or a push that caused no pain and no fear of injury. It does not mean the conduct cannot be charged at all. It means the State would have to charge and prove something other than PFMA. Our comparison of PFMA and assault explains why the label matters.

Where the Evidence Comes From

Because pain and fear are internal, the State proves them largely through what was said and recorded near the time of the event. Those are the same sources the defense examines:

The 911 call. What was reported, in what words, and by whom. See the 911 call as evidence.
Body camera video. How each person looked, moved, and described events, and whether any complaint of pain was made.
Photographs. What they show, when they were taken, and what they do not show. See body cameras, photos, and medical records.
Medical records. If treatment was sought, what was reported to the provider and what was found. If none was sought, that is a fact too, though the law does not require it.
Written and recorded statements. Whether the accounts given to dispatch, to the officer, and later match one another.

The prosecutor must make this material available to the defense on request (MCA § 46-15-322(1)).

Contradictory Accounts

When a witness has described the same event in different ways, the differences can be shown to the judge or jury. Montana's evidence rules allow a witness to be examined about a prior statement and allow outside proof of a prior inconsistent statement once the witness has had a chance to explain or deny it (Montana Rule of Evidence 613).

An inconsistency does not mean a person is lying. Memory under stress is imperfect, and people describe pain and fear differently at different times. The legal point is narrower: the State has the burden, and when the only proof of an element is an account that has changed, a judge or jury may find a reasonable doubt. That is argued in court, with the records. It is never something to raise with the other person directly, and a no contact order forbids trying.

What This Defense Does Not Do

Saying "there were no marks" is not a complete defense in Montana, and it is a mistake to treat it as one. A person can be convicted on testimony about pain or fear if the judge or jury believes it. Whether this defense is strong in a given case depends on everything else in the file, and it can work together with another defense, such as lack of the required mental state.

This page explains Montana law in general as of the 2025 Montana Code Annotated. It is not legal advice about your specific case.

Montana Domestic Violence Guide Domestic Violence Defense It Was an Accident Not a Partner or Family Member When the Accusation Is Untrue Alcohol and Intoxication

FAQ

No Injury, No Fear: Testing the Elements of PFMA FAQ

Can I be convicted of PFMA if there were no marks or bruises?

Yes, it is possible. Bodily injury is defined as physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition (MCA § 45-2-101(5)), and pain can be proved by testimony. The lack of any visible injury is still evidence a judge or jury can weigh when deciding whether the State has proved that element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can I be charged with PFMA if I never touched the other person?

Yes. One version of the offense is purposely or knowingly causing reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in a partner or family member (MCA § 45-5-206(1)(c)). No contact is required for that version, but the apprehension must be reasonable and the mental state must be proved.

What if the other person now says they were not hurt or afraid?

A later statement does not erase an earlier one. The prosecutor may still try to prove the element with the 911 call, body camera video, photographs, or other witnesses, and the change in the account becomes one more piece of evidence. Do not ask the other person to change or withdraw a statement. See when a witness recants or will not testify.

Is pushing or grabbing someone PFMA if it did not hurt?

Ordinary assault includes purposely or knowingly making physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature (MCA § 45-5-201(1)(c)). The PFMA statute has no matching subsection. For PFMA the State must prove bodily injury or reasonable apprehension of it, so contact that caused neither does not meet the PFMA definition, though it could support a different charge.

Do the police need medical records to charge PFMA?

No. Nothing in MCA § 45-5-206 requires medical evidence. When records exist they can help either side, because they show what was reported and observed close to the event.

Does the Evidence Actually Show Injury or Fear?

We will review the reports, photographs, and recordings and tell you where the State's proof is strong or thin. Call 406-830-3060 for a confidential consultation.

Call 406-830-3060 Send a Message