Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioners, Choteau Acantha Publishing and Montana Free Press, claimed that the closure of the Governor’s Advisory Council meeting with judicial applicants violated open meeting laws. The Advisory Council, appointed by Governor Greg Gianforte, was tasked with interviewing applicants for a judicial vacancy in Montana’s Ninth Judicial District. The meeting was closed to the public by the Chair, Jennifer Stutz, after the applicants asserted their privacy rights.The District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, presided by Judge Mike Menahan, granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Petitioners. The court determined that the Advisory Council’s closure of the meeting violated open meeting laws, as the applicants for a judicial position do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their qualifications. The court also found that the meeting was improperly closed for its entirety without identifying specific privacy interests, thus failing to perform the required balancing test.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that the Advisory Council’s blanket closure of the meeting was overbroad and violated the statutory procedure for closing meetings. The court emphasized that the closure should be limited to the time when the discussion relates to individual privacy matters and that the presiding officer must articulate a rationale for closure. The court did not address the broader constitutional issue of whether judicial applicants have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as the statutory violation was sufficient to resolve the case. The dismissal of Petitioners’ claim to void the Advisory Council’s actions was also affirmed. View "Choteau Acantha Publishing v. Gianforte" on Justia Law

In October 2019, Khrysta Turk reported to the Kalispell Police Department that her stepson, L.S., then 13 years old, had inappropriately touched her four-year-old daughter, E.T. L.S. admitted to the inappropriate touching during a police interview. Following the report, L.S.'s mother placed him in various residential treatment facilities for a total of 728 days. The investigation concluded in December 2019, and the matter was referred to the Eleventh Judicial District Court Office of Youth Services in January 2020. The Youth Court decided to monitor L.S.'s treatment informally without initiating formal proceedings.The State filed a formal petition on January 3, 2022, alleging that L.S. committed acts consistent with felony sexual assault. L.S. was appointed counsel, and the District Court set a trial date. L.S. moved for a continuance due to a discovery violation by the State, which delayed the trial. L.S. also filed motions to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial and for the discovery violation. The District Court denied both motions, noting that the case was atypical due to L.S.'s mother's proactive placement in treatment facilities. The trial was rescheduled multiple times, and L.S. eventually admitted to the allegations while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motions.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and conducted a speedy trial analysis. The Court determined that the delay of 329 days from the filing of the petition to L.S.'s admission was not extraordinary given the serious nature of the allegations. The Court found that the delays were either institutional or due to L.S.'s request for a continuance. L.S. consistently asserted his right to a speedy trial but failed to demonstrate that the delay prejudiced his defense. The Court concluded that no speedy trial violation occurred and affirmed the District Court's denial of L.S.'s motion to dismiss. View "In re L.S." on Justia Law

Estel Neven Zugg passed away in January 2021. Donna Katherine Finley filed a petition in September 2021, requesting the District Court to open formal intestacy proceedings, determine Neven's heirs, and appoint her as the estate's personal representative, claiming she was Neven's common law wife. Neven's sons, Austin and Kolby Zugg, participated in the proceedings. Katherine testified that she and Neven considered themselves married since 2016 and lived between North Dakota and Arizona, with occasional stays in Montana.The Fifteenth Judicial District Court held a bench trial in August 2022. Testimonies from Neven's friends and family indicated that Neven had ties to Montana but primarily lived in North Dakota and Arizona. The court found that Katherine and Neven did not live together in Montana, which does not recognize common law marriages from states that do not recognize them unless the couple resides in Montana.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court's decision, concluding that Katherine and Neven did not establish a common law marriage under Montana law. The court emphasized that a relationship begun in a state that does not recognize common law marriages must ripen by residency in Montana to become valid. Since Katherine and Neven never lived together in Montana, their relationship did not meet the requirements for a common law marriage in Montana. The court found no clear error in the District Court's findings and upheld the denial of Katherine's petition. View "In re Estate of Zugg" on Justia Law

Christopher Shelton, Vicky Costa, and Todd Costa appealed two orders from the First Judicial District Court dismissing their claims against the State of Montana, Susan Ridgeway, and Axilon Law Group. The case arose from the adoption of L.S., Shelton's biological child, by a Utah couple. Melissa Surbrugg, L.S.'s biological mother, arranged the adoption before L.S. was born. After L.S.'s birth, Surbrugg and L.S. tested positive for drugs, leading to a report to the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS). Surbrugg relinquished her parental rights, and the adoptive parents took temporary custody of L.S. The Utah court later terminated Shelton's parental rights and finalized the adoption.The District Court dismissed the claims against Ridgeway and Axilon, ruling that they owed no duty to the plaintiffs as they represented Surbrugg, not the plaintiffs. The court also granted summary judgment to the State, finding that the Utah courts had already determined that Montana complied with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), thus precluding the plaintiffs' claims.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the claims against Ridgeway and Axilon, agreeing that they owed no duty to the plaintiffs. The court also upheld the summary judgment in favor of the State, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel. It concluded that the Utah courts had already decided the issue of ICPC compliance, and the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue in Utah. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim, as the alleged misrepresentation related to a future event, not a past or existing fact. View "Shelton v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Justin Dean Kalina, was convicted by a jury of Violation of a Protective Order – Second Offense, Assault with a Weapon, and Tampering with Witnesses and Informants. The events leading to these charges occurred in late 2019 and October 2020, involving Kalina's former girlfriend, Kim Field, and her friend Stacy Butts. Kalina violated a protective order by approaching Field at a bar and later assaulted Stacy with a weapon after a confrontation at Stacy's house. Kalina also tampered with a witness by instructing his friend Jessica Foote to prepare a statement matching his version of events.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Yellowstone County presided over the trial. Kalina filed several post-trial motions, including motions to dismiss the Assault with a Weapon charge, suppress evidence, and for a new trial, all of which were denied by the District Court. Kalina also moved to enforce a pretrial plea offer, which the District Court rejected, and argued that the court imposed a "trial tax" by sentencing him more harshly than the plea offer. Additionally, Kalina claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence existed to sustain Kalina's conviction for Assault with a Weapon, as a rational juror could have found that Kalina's use of force was not justified. The court also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct the jury on the defense of Use of Force in Defense of an Occupied Structure, as Kalina's car did not meet the definition of an occupied structure. The court upheld the admission of Kalina's past assault convictions, ruling that Kalina had "opened the door" to this evidence by testifying about his lack of prior violent encounters.The court further held that the District Court did not err in denying Kalina's requests for evidentiary hearings on his motions to dismiss, suppress evidence, and for a new trial. The court found that Kalina's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance and that the District Court did not impose a "trial tax" in sentencing. Finally, the court affirmed the District Court's denial of Kalina's second motion for a new trial, finding substantial compliance with jury selection statutes. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the District Court's judgment. View "State v. Kalina" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Beth Cummings and Dena Burnham Johnson, filed a petition to annul or void an election that provided additional funds for the Great Falls Public Library. They alleged discrepancies in the election process, including a mathematical error in the ballot and a lack of clear information provided to voters. The election, held in June 2023, resulted in the approval of a mill levy increase to support the library.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Montana dismissed the plaintiffs' petition under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a legally cognizable claim. The court found that the plaintiffs' allegations did not demonstrate a violation of their constitutional rights to suffrage or due process. The court also noted that the mathematical error on the ballot was minor and did not mislead voters to the extent that it would invalidate the election results. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiffs' claims of election law violations were not applicable to the mill levy election.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs' right of suffrage was not violated, as they were not prevented from voting and were not misled by the ballot language. The court also concluded that the due process claim was unfounded, as the election process and materials provided sufficient information to voters. Furthermore, the court agreed with the lower court that the plaintiffs' claims under state election laws were not relevant to the mill levy election.The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend their petition, finding that the proposed amendments would be futile and would cause substantial prejudice to the defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' additional legal arguments did not present a valid controversy and that the defendants had already expended significant resources in the case. View "Cummings v. Kelly" on Justia Law

In July 2020, Sanders County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a shooting incident involving Michel Scott Dulaney and his neighbor, Edgar Torrey. Torrey was shot during an altercation, and Dulaney was arrested after initially denying involvement but later claiming self-defense. Dulaney was charged with three counts of attempted deliberate homicide, and he asserted a justifiable use of force defense.The Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders County, presided over the case. The court excluded the testimony of Dulaney’s expert witness, Gary Marbut, who was to testify about self-defense and the mechanics of the shooting. The court also ruled that Dulaney had to testify and admit to acting purposely and knowingly to assert his justification defense. Dulaney was found guilty on all counts by a jury.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court did not err in requiring Dulaney to provide evidence that he acted purposely and knowingly to assert his justifiable use of force defense. The court clarified that while Dulaney had to concede purposeful and knowing conduct, he did not have to admit to intending to commit deliberate homicide. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excluding Marbut’s testimony, as the jury could understand the circumstances without expert explanation. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of Dulaney’s post-verdict motion for a new trial or judgment of acquittal, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. View "State v. M. Dulaney" on Justia Law

Mitchell McBroom and Barbara Lewis-Baca, employees of the Missoula Urban Transportation District (MUTD) and members of the Teamsters Local 2 Union, were disciplined with three days of unpaid suspension for conducting union activity during work hours. They challenged this discipline through the grievance process outlined in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The grievance process concluded with a settlement on May 4, 2023, reducing the discipline to written warnings and granting backpay. Dissatisfied with the settlement, the employees filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) claim against MUTD on June 29, 2023.The Board of Personnel Appeals (BOPA) reviewed the ULP claim and determined that the six-month statute of limitations for filing the claim had expired. The employees argued that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled due to their reliance on the CBA grievance process. BOPA issued a final order affirming the initial determination that the statute of limitations had lapsed.The employees sought judicial review, arguing that BOPA erred in not tolling the statute of limitations. The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, concluded that BOPA did not err and that the employees could have filed their ULP claim before the expiration of the statute of limitations while the grievance process was ongoing. The employees then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the employees failed to file their ULP claim within the six-month statute of limitations. The court found that the CBA specifically excluded state law claims from the grievance process, and nothing prevented the employees from filing their ULP claim within the statutory period. The court concluded that the statute of limitations was not equitably tolled and upheld the dismissal of the ULP claim. View "McBroom v. Board of Personnel Appeals" on Justia Law

In August 2021, the State of Montana charged Kordy Lee Denny with three offenses: Partner Family Member Strangulation (a felony), Partner Family Member Assault (a misdemeanor), and Destruction/Tampering with a Communication Device (a misdemeanor). Denny allegedly strangled his ex-wife, took her phone when she tried to call 911, and punched her in the face. Denny pleaded not guilty to all charges. In December 2022, Denny agreed to plead guilty to the two misdemeanors in exchange for the dismissal of the felony charge and the State's sentencing recommendation.The Montana Eighth Judicial District Court accepted Denny's nolo contendere pleas to the misdemeanors but ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) report, despite objections from both the defense and the State. The court argued that the PSI was necessary due to the original felony charge. Denny failed to comply with the PSI process, leading the State to argue that this non-cooperation converted the plea agreement from binding to non-binding, allowing the State to recommend a harsher sentence. The District Court sentenced Denny to a one-year jail term with all but 120 days suspended for the assault charge and a consecutive six-month suspended jail term for the communication device charge.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and held that the District Court erred in ordering a PSI for the misdemeanors, as they were not originally charged as sexual or violent felonies. The court found that the plea agreement's requirement for Denny to cooperate with the PSI was unlawful and void. Consequently, the State breached the plea agreement by recommending a harsher sentence. The Supreme Court reversed Denny's judgment and sentence, remanding the case for resentencing in accordance with the original plea agreement. The court also ordered the PSI report to be destroyed and stricken from the record. View "State v. Denny" on Justia Law

Musselshell Ditch Company (MDC) owns and operates the Musselshell Ditch canal system. JD Bar D, LLC, along with its shareholders James D. Harris and Jody Wacker, own a ranch in Musselshell County, Montana, which is crossed by the Ditch. An easement granted in 2005 allows MDC exclusive use of the Ditch for operation and maintenance. Between 2014 and 2017, JD Bar D received permission from MDC for several projects impacting the Ditch. However, from 2017 to 2019, JD Bar D installed additional structures, including a wooden bridge, cement pump box, water pump, electrical conduit, and buried pipeline, without MDC’s permission. MDC opposed these installations, but JD Bar D refused to remove them.The Fourteenth Judicial District Court of Montana found that JD Bar D’s installations unreasonably interfered with MDC’s easement rights, violating § 70-17-112, MCA. The court ordered JD Bar D to remove the structures and awarded MDC approximately $40,000 in attorneys’ fees. JD Bar D appealed, arguing that the District Court failed to balance their water and property rights with MDC’s easement rights and improperly relied on the absence of permission in determining the reasonableness of the structures.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The court held that JD Bar D’s installations created permanent, hazardous, and inconvenient encroachments within the Ditch, unreasonably interfering with MDC’s easement rights. The court also noted that forcing MDC to defend its easement rights in court constituted unreasonable interference. The Supreme Court concluded that the District Court’s findings were supported by substantial credible evidence and that the award of attorneys’ fees to MDC was appropriate under § 70-17-112(5), MCA. View "Musselshell Ditch Co. v. JD BAR D, LLC" on Justia Law