Hmmmmm
Part of the idea behind the castle doctrine is that a person should be allowed to peaceably hold and protect their own stuff ~ and what you look for is that you were there at home, or in your car, or with your stuff (front yard, barn, wherever) lawfully, and some dude comes along and does some unlawful stuff in or on your property ~ that is, you didn't invite him and he didn't have your permission to BE THERE so you can even pursue him down the road and thrash or kill him!
Not knowing just how far Montana went with this off-premises idea, but if they went the whole way the husband was fully justified in chasing this kid down and doing bad stuff to him. Just because he fled to his own home really shouldn't defend him against the husband's efforts to protect his own stuff.
I don't think this one is over ~ but some lawyer is going to make a lot of money on the deal, possibly even from the local jurisdiction's taxpayers if the prosecutor holds firm on his idea that there's no prosecution needed.
Wonder how often the prosecutor gets into this sort of indiscretion himself ~
Your facts are wrong... Again. They were in HER truck. Not a car. If you can't get even that right, it's no wonder you aren't coming to the logical conclusions.
Doesn't matter if the husband chased them from New York to Los Angeles... If you are trespassing with intent to cause bodily harm...
You lose.