Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A proposed constitutional initiative in Montana sought to require that Supreme Court and district court elections remain nonpartisan, reflecting a legal tradition in Montana since 1935. The proponent organization submitted both the initiative and a draft explanatory ballot statement to the Secretary of State, which was then reviewed by the Legislative Services Division. The organization’s draft statement explained the initiative would constitutionalize the existing statutory requirement, making future changes possible only by constitutional amendment.After the statutory review process, the Attorney General concluded the initiative met legal sufficiency but chose to substitute his own revised ballot statement, claiming the revision would improve clarity and better inform voters of the initiative’s effects. He did not detail any statutory deficiencies in the proponent's original statement. The proponent organization, joined by another organization interested in nonpartisan judicial elections, challenged the Attorney General’s authority to revise the statement without a written determination that the original was not clear or impartial. The Attorney General responded that only the proponent of the specific initiative could bring such a challenge.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana first found that only the proponent organization had statutory standing to pursue this challenge, dismissing the second organization from the proceeding. The Court then held that the Attorney General lacked authority to revise the proponent’s ballot statement because he had not made the required written determination that the original was statutorily noncompliant. The Court concluded that the proponent’s original statement was clear, impartial, and met statutory requirements. Accordingly, the Court certified the proponent’s original statement to the Secretary of State and ordered its use in the ballot process. View "MFIJ v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

On November 23, 2019, the appellant was driving an Acura with three children, including her own, when her vehicle was rear-ended by another driver. Witnesses testified that after this collision, the Acura accelerated rapidly, left the road, then reentered it and collided head-on with a Yukon. The crash resulted in the death of one child and serious injury to another. At the time, the appellant’s driver’s license was suspended, and she was not permitted unsupervised contact with her children due to prior involvement with Child Protective Services.The State of Montana charged the appellant with multiple offenses, including negligent homicide, criminal endangerment, and driving with a suspended license. The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, presided over a six-day jury trial. The jury found the appellant guilty on all counts. The appellant’s defense argued that the initial rear-end collision was the cause of the subsequent crash, while the prosecution maintained that the appellant’s actions, including improperly restraining the children and fleeing the scene, were negligent and directly led to the fatal incident.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the negligent homicide conviction, asserted ineffective assistance of counsel, objected to the admission of certain expert testimony, sought a mistrial based on inadmissible testimony, and disputed the order of restitution for lost wages. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment. It held that there was sufficient evidence for the negligent homicide conviction, found no ineffective assistance of counsel, ruled that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony or denying a mistrial, and upheld the restitution award, finding it legally appropriate under Montana law. View "State v. Mullendore" on Justia Law

The case concerns a confrontation between the defendant, a 29-year-old man, and his 79-year-old neighbor in Winnett, Montana. After an altercation outside their apartments, the neighbor was found fatally stabbed, while the defendant had a gunshot wound. The defendant claimed he acted in self-defense after the neighbor allegedly shot him first. Physical evidence, however, contradicted the defendant’s account, indicating the victim was not standing when stabbed and that the sequence of events differed from the defendant’s narrative. The defendant was charged with deliberate homicide, with a sentencing enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon.In the Tenth Judicial District Court, the defendant initially indicated he might raise a mental disease or disorder defense but failed to meet several disclosure deadlines and ultimately abandoned that defense. The District Court, upon a motion in limine by the State, precluded the defendant from introducing evidence to support a lesser-included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide while pursuing a justifiable use of force (self-defense) claim. The court also addressed juror evidentiary questions during trial without consulting the parties, to which the defendant did not object. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to 110 years in prison.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana found that the District Court erred in categorically precluding the defendant from seeking a mitigated deliberate homicide instruction while pursuing a justifiable use of force defense. The Supreme Court clarified that a defendant may present alternative theories if supported by the evidence. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced, as he did not present admissible evidence supporting mitigation at trial. The court also declined to exercise plain error review regarding the handling of juror questions, finding no manifest miscarriage of justice. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

In this case, a defendant was charged with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and one count of sexual assault, all involving minor victims. The events took place in a home where the defendant lived with his partner and her family. The allegations involved three minors: A.M., K.E., and K.K., who reported inappropriate sexual contact by the defendant on different occasions between 2015 and 2018. K.K., the youngest, disclosed the abuse to her parents shortly after spending the night at the defendant’s home, but during trial, she could not recall the events or her prior statements. The prosecution introduced K.K.’s earlier statements to her parents and a forensic interviewer, which described specific acts of sexual assault.The Eighth Judicial District Court, presiding over Cascade County, denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss one count (involving K.K.), finding that there was sufficient corroborative evidence to support K.K.’s prior inconsistent statements. The corroborative evidence included the immediate and distressed reaction of K.K.’s parents, the timing of K.K.’s disclosures, and the child’s demeanor in her forensic interview. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts. Nearly a year and a half later, the defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that irregularities in the jury selection process violated Montana law. The District Court denied this motion as untimely and found no evidence that the jury was not a fair cross-section of the community or that the selection process had affected the trial’s fairness.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that reliable, independent corroborative evidence supported K.K.’s prior inconsistent statements, satisfying the evidentiary requirements. The Court also held that technical violations in the jury selection process did not render the trial unfair or the jury unrepresentative. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s rulings and the defendant’s convictions. View "State v. French" on Justia Law

The case concerns the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services’ attempt to recover $5,360.89 in Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of a deceased recipient, Florence Pound. The sole heir, Minta Johnson, inherited Pound’s home, the primary estate asset valued at approximately $200,000. After Pound’s death, Johnson, as personal representative, published notice to creditors as required by Montana law. The Department submitted its claim one day after the four-month statutory deadline for creditor claims had expired, and the Probate Court denied the claim as untimely. The estate was then distributed entirely to Johnson.Following the denial of its claim in the Eleventh Judicial District Court (Probate Court), the Department filed a new action in the Fourth Judicial District Court, seeking recovery from Johnson personally under a separate statute, § 53-6-167(2), MCA, which allows the Department to seek reimbursement from anyone who received property from the estate. The District Court granted summary judgment to Johnson, reasoning that the Department’s untimely creditor’s claim barred further action and that issue preclusion applied because the same underlying issue had already been decided in probate.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the matter de novo. It held that the Department’s statutory right under § 53-6-167(2), MCA, to recover Medicaid benefits from an heir is independent of the probate creditor claim process, and that a missed probate deadline does not bar a subsequent action against an heir. The Court further found that issue preclusion did not apply because the probate court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Department’s statutory claim against the heir, and the issues in the two proceedings were not identical. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for judgment in favor of the Department. View "Department of Public Health and Human Services v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After being arrested for violating probation related to a past conviction and facing a new charge for failing to register as a sex offender, the plaintiff was indicted in federal court for possession of a firearm as a prohibited person. Initially represented by the defendant, a federal public defender, the plaintiff entered a guilty plea. Before sentencing, the attorney withdrew due to communication breakdown, and a new counsel was appointed. The plaintiff was ultimately sentenced to prison and supervised release. He later filed a motion in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, unlawful searches, fabricated evidence, and coercion regarding his plea. The federal court rejected these claims, finding no supporting evidence and that the searches and arrest had been lawful.Subsequently, the plaintiff brought a civil action in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, alleging professional negligence by his former attorney based on similar allegations already raised in the federal proceeding. The district court noted the plaintiff’s failure to timely and properly disclose expert witnesses but primarily analyzed whether his claims were barred by collateral estoppel. It found that the issues had already been litigated and decided in the federal court, and thus granted summary judgment for the defendant, dismissing all claims.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo. It held that all four elements of collateral estoppel were satisfied: the issues were identical to those litigated in federal court, there was a final judgment on the merits, the parties were the same, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims previously. Therefore, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and dismissal of the claims, holding they were barred by collateral estoppel. View "Benton v. Babcock" on Justia Law

A 45-year-old man encountered a 15-year-old girl, T.K., and her friends at a house party in Butte, Montana. Over two occasions, he purchased alcohol for them. On the night in question, after drinking heavily, T.K. and another friend asked the man for a ride to get more alcohol. He drove them to a gas station, bought whiskey, and later drove them back to Butte. T.K. was heavily intoxicated and, after a series of events including sexual activity in the car involving the man and another adult, T.K. was ultimately taken by the man to his hotel. Surveillance footage showed him carrying an unconscious and limp T.K. into the hotel. She woke later, confused, missing clothes, and feeling sore. A hospital exam found injuries and DNA matching the man. T.K. was underage and highly intoxicated.The State of Montana charged the man with sexual intercourse without consent. At trial in the Second Judicial District Court in Butte-Silver Bow County, the prosecution presented evidence of T.K.’s incapacity due to age and intoxication. The jury was given a stipulation regarding the mental state required (“knowingly”) that used an incorrect, result-based definition. The jury returned a guilty verdict, specifically finding that the man was guilty because T.K. was under 16 and because she was incapacitated.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, the defendant argued the erroneous jury instruction violated his rights and that his counsel was ineffective for agreeing to it. The Court held that, although the instruction was incorrect, the evidence at trial clearly demonstrated the defendant’s awareness of T.K.’s incapacity. Therefore, he was not prejudiced by the error. The Court declined to exercise plain error review and also rejected the ineffective assistance claim for lack of prejudice. The conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Davisson" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple felonies, including Incest, Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence, and sixteen counts of Sexual Abuse of Children. He entered a binding plea agreement to plead guilty to four counts of Sexual Abuse of Children in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges and a net sentence of forty years, with twenty suspended. At the plea hearing, the defendant affirmed he understood the agreement, had discussed it with counsel, and was entering his plea voluntarily without coercion. Several weeks later, he sent communications to the court and the State, asserting that his prior counsel had pressured him into accepting the plea.Following these communications, attorney McKittrick formally replaced attorney Martin as defense counsel. The Eighth Judicial District Court held a hearing to address the defendant’s request for substitution of counsel, applying the standards from State v. Johnson, 2019 MT 34. At the hearing, the defendant claimed he had been pressured by his previous attorney, referencing conversations about sentencing risks. McKittrick, present during those discussions, described them as a standard risk-versus-reward analysis, not coercion. The District Court found no actual conflict of interest, irreconcilable conflict, or complete breakdown in communication warranting substitution and denied the request.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying substitution of counsel. Applying the abuse of discretion standard and reviewing the procedures and analysis used below, the Supreme Court found the District Court conducted an adequate inquiry and properly applied settled law. The main holding is that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for substitution of counsel because the concerns raised did not amount to an actual conflict, irreconcilable conflict, or complete breakdown in communication. The decision of the District Court was affirmed. View "State v. Carlin" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between two formerly married individuals regarding possession of their cat, Yasmine, following their divorce in 2015. Their Marital Property Settlement Agreement (MPSA) specified that the wife would be awarded possession of the cat, but the husband would care for Yasmine until the wife requested possession. If the husband’s new residence did not permit cats after the sale of the marital home, he was required to notify the wife, who then had 20 days to take custody or arrange for the cat’s care. After the marital home was sold in 2016, the husband notified the wife, but she was unable to take possession or arrange care for Yasmine immediately and requested more time. The husband agreed to a short extension, but the wife did not act within that period, and the cat remained with the husband. Several years later, in 2023, the wife sought custody of Yasmine, but the husband refused, claiming she had forfeited her rights under the MPSA.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, held a hearing in January 2024 on the wife’s motion for contempt, alleging the husband violated the MPSA. The court found that the husband had provided proper notice, the wife was aware of this, and she failed to take the cat or arrange for its care within the agreed-upon timeframe. The court denied the contempt motion and issued its findings and order in February 2024. Subsequent motions by the wife for reconsideration and an out-of-time appeal were denied or deemed denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the MPSA did not grant the wife an indefinite right to possess Yasmine and that her rights under the agreement expired months after the time extension, not years later. The court found no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s denial of the contempt motion. View "Marriage of Burgard & Jacobsen" on Justia Law

After the Department of Public Health and Human Services received a report that the mother of a fourteen-year-old, J.D., had been arrested for allegedly making numerous inappropriate calls to a sheriff’s dispatch over two years, J.D. was left without another adult with legal custody. The Department placed J.D. with his aunt, T.M., on an emergency basis. The Department’s case focused on concerns about the mother’s mental health, including reports of erratic behavior during her custody and prior departmental involvement. The Department filed a petition for emergency protective services, adjudication of J.D. as a youth in need of care (YINC), and temporary legal custody, supported by an affidavit describing alleged neglect and the need for immediate protection due to the mother’s mental health.The Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, held a show cause hearing in March 2023, where the mother denied the allegations but stipulated to cause. At an adjudicatory hearing in April 2023, the Department presented testimony primarily regarding the mother’s mental health and past incidents, such as throwing objects, but did not establish any present physical or psychological harm to J.D. or substantial risk thereof. J.D.’s counsel advised the court that J.D. was not afraid of his mother. The District Court adjudicated J.D. as a YINC, finding the mother’s mental health issues presented a risk to J.D.’s well-being and granted the Department temporary legal custody, later imposing a guardianship.Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana applied an abuse of discretion standard. The Court held that the District Court’s finding of abuse and neglect was not supported by substantial evidence, as the Department failed to demonstrate a specific, imminent risk of harm to J.D. resulting from the mother’s conduct. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed and vacated both the adjudication of J.D. as a YINC and the subsequent guardianship order. View "Matter of J.D." on Justia Law