Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group called Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts submitted a proposed constitutional amendment, Ballot Issue 6 (BI-6), which would require all judicial elections in Montana to remain nonpartisan and mandate that any new courts created after the amendment’s effective date have judges elected on a nonpartisan basis. The initiative was submitted to the Secretary of State, who forwarded it for review. The Legislative Services Division completed its review, and the Attorney General then conducted a legal sufficiency review.The Attorney General of Montana determined that BI-6 was not legally sufficient under Montana law, specifically citing a violation of the separate-vote requirement in Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution. This provision requires that if more than one constitutional amendment is submitted at the same election, each must be prepared and distinguished so it can be voted on separately. The Attorney General concluded that BI-6 contained two distinct substantive changes: one regarding nonpartisan judicial elections and another regarding the method of selecting judges for newly created courts. Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts challenged this determination in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, seeking a declaratory judgment that BI-6 was legally sufficient.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether BI-6 violated the separate-vote requirement. The Court held that BI-6 proposed two substantive changes that were not closely related: requiring all judicial elections to be nonpartisan and mandating that judges in new courts be elected rather than appointed. The Court found that combining these changes in a single measure would prevent voters from expressing separate preferences and could result in “logrolling.” Therefore, the Court affirmed the Attorney General’s determination and denied the petitioner’s request, holding that BI-6 was not legally sufficient. View "Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

A group called Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts (MNC) submitted a proposed constitutional initiative, CI-132, which would add a section to the Montana Constitution stating that judicial elections shall remain nonpartisan. MNC also submitted a proposed ballot statement: “CI-132 amends the Montana Constitution to require that judicial elections remain nonpartisan.” After the initiative and statement were submitted to the Secretary of State and reviewed by the Legislative Services Division, the Montana Attorney General conducted a legal sufficiency review. The Attorney General found the initiative legally sufficient but rejected MNC’s proposed statement, arguing it did not accurately reflect the current constitutional text and failed to define “nonpartisan.” The Attorney General then issued a revised statement, which MNC challenged as misleading and prejudicial.MNC filed an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General’s revised statement violated statutory requirements and asking the Court to certify its own proposed statement. The Attorney General responded, defending his revised statement and criticizing MNC’s version for not reflecting the constitutional status quo and lacking a definition of “nonpartisan.”The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the Attorney General’s revised statement was misleading because it implied CI-132 would change the status quo, when in fact judicial elections in Montana are already nonpartisan by statute. The Court also found that a definition of “nonpartisan” was unnecessary, given voters’ familiarity with the term and the absence of a statutory definition. The Court concluded that MNC’s proposed statement was a true and impartial explanation of the initiative in plain language, meeting statutory requirements. The Court certified MNC’s statement to the Secretary of State and granted the petition for declaratory judgment. View "Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

Joseph Dwayne Matt was a passenger in Levi Gadaire’s vehicle when it was stopped by law enforcement for erratic driving. Both Matt and Gadaire were probationers, and Matt was flagged as an absconder with an active warrant for his arrest. During the stop, Gadaire admitted to recent methamphetamine use, which led to a search of the vehicle. Officers discovered multiple bags of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in the center console. Matt was charged with criminal possession of a dangerous drug with intent to distribute by accountability, and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia.The case proceeded to trial in the Montana First Judicial District Court, Broadwater County. The State’s evidence included testimony from the reporting driver, law enforcement officers, body cam footage, surveillance video, and phone records. Gadaire, who had given multiple inconsistent statements during the investigation, testified that Matt was present during the drug pick-up but later recanted aspects of his testimony. At the close of the State’s case, Matt moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State’s evidence was insufficient because it relied on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. The District Court denied the motion, and the jury found Matt guilty of criminal possession of a dangerous drug, but not guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in denying Matt’s motion for a directed verdict due to insufficient corroborating evidence. The Supreme Court held that the State failed to provide independent evidence connecting Matt to the crime, apart from Gadaire’s testimony. Mere presence in the vehicle did not meet the statutory requirement for corroboration. The Supreme Court reversed Matt’s conviction, remanded the case, and ordered the District Court to vacate the judgment and dismiss the charges. View "State v. Matt" on Justia Law

A couple who had lived together in Montana since the mid-1990s had their relationship recognized as a common law marriage. After separating in 2013, the wife petitioned for divorce in 2014. During the dissolution proceedings, both parties exchanged financial information but did not submit final declarations of disclosure as required by Montana law. Following a bench trial, the District Court issued a Final Decree in December 2018, dissolving the marriage, distributing the marital estate, and ordering the husband to pay spousal and child support, as well as the mortgage on the marital home awarded to the wife. Neither party objected at the time to the lack of final disclosure statements.Subsequent litigation focused on the husband’s financial obligations under the Final Decree. The husband sought to modify or suspend his support obligations, leading to further discovery disputes and contempt proceedings when he failed to make required payments. The District Court repeatedly enforced the Final Decree, denied the husband’s motions to modify, and awarded attorney fees to the wife. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed these orders in a prior appeal. In December 2023, the husband, for the first time, moved to set aside the Final Decree on the basis that final disclosure statements had not been exchanged. The District Court denied this motion as untimely and because the statutory basis for relief did not apply.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s denial of the husband’s motion to set aside the Final Decree and his request for a new trial. The Court held that Montana law only authorizes setting aside a judgment if a party committed perjury in a final disclosure statement, which was not possible here since no such statements were exchanged. The Court also awarded the wife her attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal, remanding to the District Court to determine the reasonable amount. View "Marriage of: Kelly and Camp" on Justia Law

Corbin Damjanovich died in February 2024, leaving two adult children, Nicolette and Derek. After his death, Corbin’s sister, Tracy Barlow, and cousin, Carl Openshaw, petitioned for informal appointment as co-personal representatives of his estate in Yellowstone County, Montana. Subsequently, Nicolette and Derek discovered a handwritten, signed document dated December 9, 2015, which appeared to be Corbin’s will. Barlow and Openshaw then sought formal probate of this document, asserting it was a valid holographic will that named Barlow as executor and sole devisee, and expressed Corbin’s wish to establish a trust. The document gave Barlow discretion over the disbursement of funds and assets. The parties stipulated to the authenticity of the handwriting and signature, and that Corbin had capacity. Nicolette objected, arguing the document lacked testamentary intent and did not create a trust or mechanism for distributing the estate, so the estate should pass by intestacy.The Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court admitted the 2015 document to probate as a valid holographic will, found it created a power of appointment in Barlow, confirmed her as personal representative, and ended Openshaw’s co-appointment. Nicolette appealed, disputing the legal effect of the 2015 writing.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo. It held that the 2015 document was a valid holographic will only for the limited purpose of appointing Barlow as personal representative. The court reversed the lower court’s conclusion that the document created a power of appointment or trust, finding it did not effectively dispose of Corbin’s estate. As a result, the undisposed portion of the estate must pass by intestacy to Corbin’s descendants. The case was remanded for entry of an order of partial intestacy and further administration consistent with Montana’s intestate succession laws. View "In re Estate of Damjanovich" on Justia Law

Three men, including Andre Anthony, entered a Family Dollar Store in Hardin, Montana, and over about ten minutes, one of the men fraudulently completed three transactions at the computerized cash register by pressing the “cash received” button without providing payment. Surveillance video showed Anthony standing near the register, at times distracting the store attendant, while the fraudulent transactions occurred. The men left with three gift cards and a bottle of body wash, totaling $1,512.35. Law enforcement later detained the men and found receipts and merchandise matching the transactions in their vehicle. The store attendant misidentified Anthony as the man who pressed the register button, but Anthony was arrested and charged.Initially, Anthony was charged in Hardin City Court with shoplifting, but the charges were amended to unlawful use of a computer by accountability. After posting bail, Anthony returned to Michigan and requested to appear at hearings by video, which was sometimes permitted. At trial, Anthony appeared by video, but the court denied his request to testify by video after the prosecution rested. The City Court found Anthony guilty on all three counts. On appeal, the District Court for the Twenty-Second Judicial District affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the denial of Anthony’s request to testify by video.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo. It held that the evidence was sufficient to support Anthony’s convictions for unlawful use of a computer by accountability, as his actions and presence supported a finding that he aided or abetted the offenses. However, the Supreme Court found that the City Court abused its discretion by allowing Anthony to appear by video for trial but then denying his request to testify by video without clear explanation. The Supreme Court reversed Anthony’s convictions and remanded for a new trial on all counts. View "City of Hardin v. Anthony" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in which the defendant was accused of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent with the complainant, K.R., who had spent the afternoon and evening drinking at several bars. The two were acquaintances and exchanged messages on Facebook, with K.R. inviting the defendant to her home. K.R. later testified that she did not remember the events after leaving the bar, including her communications with the defendant, driving home, or leaving her door unlocked. She recalled regaining awareness during a sexual encounter at her home, at which point she told the man to stop. The defendant asserted that he did not know K.R. was unable to consent, pointing to her actions and communications as evidence that she appeared functional.The Second Judicial District Court of Montana presided over the trial. The court excluded evidence of K.R.’s past alcohol use and denied the defense’s request to present expert testimony on the effects of regular alcohol consumption. The court also instructed the jury that the defendant could be found guilty if he was aware of a “high probability” that K.R. was unable to consent, rather than requiring actual knowledge. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years suspended.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the district court’s jury instruction on the mental state required for conviction and its exclusion of certain evidence constituted reversible error. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred by giving a result-based instruction for “knowingly,” which lowered the State’s burden of proof and violated the defendant’s due process rights. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excluding evidence of K.R.’s past drinking habits or the expert testimony as offered. The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Pierce" on Justia Law

Skye Angel Anne Hennon filed a sworn petition in the Judith Basin Justice Court seeking a temporary order of protection against Matthew Weber for herself, her minor son N.G., and Brian Gonzalez. Hennon alleged that Weber had harassed and stalked her through threatening messages and uninvited visits, and referenced a separate legal dispute in Idaho. The Justice Court issued a temporary order of protection and scheduled a hearing, at which both parties appeared and testified. During the hearing, Weber attempted to cross-examine Hennon, but the court allowed Hennon to decline answering a relevant question and ended the cross-examination. Weber presented his own testimony and attempted to submit exhibits, which the court excluded as hearsay. The Justice Court extended the order of protection for Hennon and N.G. for one year.Weber appealed to the Montana Tenth Judicial District Court, which affirmed the order of protection for Hennon and N.G., but dismissed it as to Gonzalez, noting that Gonzalez, as an adult, needed to seek his own order. The District Court acknowledged deficiencies in the record, including unclear admitted exhibits and unintelligible audio, but relied on the Justice Court’s position to observe the parties and testimony.Weber then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana. The Supreme Court held that the Justice Court abused its discretion and violated Weber’s procedural due process rights by denying him a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine Hennon on central factual issues. The Court also found that the District Court abused its discretion by affirming the order of protection despite an incomplete and unclear record. The Supreme Court vacated both lower courts’ orders and remanded the case to the Justice Court for a new evidentiary hearing consistent with statutory and due process requirements. View "Hennon v. Weber" on Justia Law

Law enforcement in Lewistown, Montana, investigated David Allen Pein for suspected marijuana distribution in 2016, using a confidential informant to conduct controlled purchases. A search of Pein’s residence yielded marijuana, paraphernalia, cash, and other evidence. Pein was charged with nine counts related to possession and distribution of marijuana. In 2017, Pein entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to one count of felony Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs with Intent to Distribute (Count VI), while six other charges were dismissed. Two additional counts—felony Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs (Count IV) and felony Use or Possession of Property Subject to Criminal Forfeiture (Count VIII)—were subject to a deferred prosecution agreement incorporated by reference into the plea agreement.The Tenth Judicial District Court deferred Pein’s sentence on Count VI. After Pein violated the terms of his deferred sentence and deferred prosecution agreement, the State reinstated prosecution on Counts IV and VIII. Pein was convicted by a jury on these counts in 2024 and sentenced to concurrent prison terms. Pein appealed, challenging the validity of incorporating a deferred prosecution agreement into a plea agreement, as well as the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that Montana’s plea agreement statute (§ 46-12-211, MCA) does not authorize the incorporation of a deferred prosecution agreement under the pretrial diversion statute (§ 46-16-130, MCA) into a plea agreement. The Court vacated Pein’s convictions for Counts IV and VIII and remanded for further proceedings. The Court affirmed Pein’s conviction on Count VI, rejecting his argument that marijuana is incorrectly classified as a Schedule I drug. The disposition was affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. View "State v. Pein" on Justia Law

The case concerns two children who were removed from their parents’ care in 2018 due to concerns including unmet medical and educational needs, substance exposure, and a history of domestic violence and substance abuse by the parents. The children were placed with their grandparents, who were later appointed as guardians. The parents had supervised visitation, which increased to unsupervised visits after the father’s release from incarceration and the mother’s progress toward sobriety. In 2022, the parents sought to terminate the guardianship, while the grandparents requested recognition as third-party parents. A Guardian ad Litem (GAL) recommended the children remain with the grandparents and that visitation with the parents remain supervised.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, previously granted the grandparents a third-party parental interest and adopted a parenting plan requiring the parents to remain sober and address safety concerns to obtain unsupervised visitation. In early 2025, the grandparents moved to suspend visitation due to new safety concerns and the parents’ failure to continue counseling. The court suspended visitation, held a hearing, and heard testimony from the children’s therapists, who described the children’s anxiety and PTSD symptoms related to time spent with the parents. The court found a change in circumstances and amended the parenting plan to maintain the children’s primary residence with the grandparents and limit the parents to supervised visitation.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the parents’ appeal, which raised procedural and substantive challenges to the district court’s orders. The Supreme Court held that prior decisions regarding the third-party parental interest and related issues were binding under the law of the case doctrine. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s amendment of the parenting plan, concluding that a change in circumstances existed and that the amendment served the children’s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Parenting of L.M.A.R. & N.R.R." on Justia Law