Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jennifer and Elo Nielsen commenced an action against Andreas Hornsteiner seeking injunctive relief and damages for actions Hornsteiner took that allegedly interfered with the Nielsens' use of their easement. Horsteiner failed to file an answer within twenty days, and therefore, the district court entered a default judgment against Hornsteiner. Hornsteiner filed a motion to set aside the default for good cause. The district court denied the motion. Thereafter, the court permanently enjoined Hornsteiner from blocking the easement and awarded the Nielsens their costs and attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the entry of default against Hornsteiner; and (2) Hornsteiner waived his objection to the award of attorney's fees. View "Nielson v. Hornsteiner" on Justia Law

Appellant Daniel Burns pleaded guilty to one felony count of sexual abuse of children. The Supreme Court remanded for the purpose of striking a portion of the district court's restitution order. Burns subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his public defender. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Burns had not presented a sufficient argument to overcome the presumption that counsel's action and advice were outside the broad scope of reasonable professional conduct, and as Burns had not established that his counsel was ineffective, he had not presented good cause to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Burns v. State" on Justia Law

Trent Trier was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent BAC or greater. The justice court explained that upon demand of a jury trial, the final pretrial conference required the physical appearance of Trier and his counsel and that default in appearance would effect a waiver of Trier's right to a jury trial. After Trier filed a demand for a jury trial, both Trier and his counsel failed to appear at the final pretrial conference. A non-jury trial was held, and the justice court found Trier guilty of operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent BAC or greater. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the justice court correctly found Trier's non-appearance for a mandatory pretrial conference to be a waiver of his jury trial, and thereby properly dismissed Trier's appeal. View "State v. Trier" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Hardman was found guilty by a jury of deliberate homicide and tampering with the evidence. The district court sentenced Hardman to 110 years in prison with no parole eligibility for thirty years. Hardman appealed his conviction and sought a new trial, arguing (1) the district court made numerous erroneous evidentiary rulings amounting to cumulative error and requiring reversal, and (2) under the due process clause, the court's one-sided evidentiary rulings prevented him from effectively rebutting the State's case and presenting a defense, violating his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly exercised its discretion in all but one of its evidentiary rulings, and therefore, cumulative error did not warrant reversal of Hardman's conviction; and (2) since the holding on the first issue controlled, the constitutional argument was not considered. View "State v. Hardman" on Justia Law

Appellant Marla Ward filed suit seeking damages for personal injuries she sustained as she was sorting horses on Appellee Paul Johnson's property. Johnson resided in Pondera County. Johnson filed a motion to change venue, arguing that Pondera County was the appropriate place for trial because it was the only county where a defendant resided. Ward opposed the motion, asserting that case law permitted Ward to file her claim in Yellowstone County, her place of residence. The district court ruled in favor of Johnson. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Ward's decision to file her complaint in Yellowstone County was legally correct under Mont. Code Ann. 25-2-122(2)(b); and (2) the statute permitting Ward to file her action in the county of her residence did not deprive Johnson of the equal protection of the laws. View "Ward v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A jury convicted George Moore of felony driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The district court sentenced Moore to thirteen months' incarceration followed by a suspended commitment to the department of corrections for five years. The court also imposed appointed counsel costs of $1,340, prosecution costs of $100, and jury costs of $1,447. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by failing to investigate Moore's financial circumstances, including his ability to pay the jury costs, appointed counsel costs, and prosecution costs. Remanded to the district court for a determination as to whether Moore could afford the appointed counsel costs, prosecution costs, and jury costs. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

After Brandon Burns was charged with felony DUI, Burns entered into a non-binding plea agreement with the State requiring the State to recommend a fifteen year prison sentence with five years suspended. The plea agreement was silent as to any possible fine. During the sentencing hearing, the State abided by its promise to recommend a fifteen year sentence and further recommended a $5,000 fine. The district court issued the State's recommended sentence, including the fine. Burns subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis that the $5,000 fine violated the plea agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the fine did not violate the plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence established that Burns failed to object to the fine at every step of the process, and accordingly, the district court properly denied Burns's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "State v. Burns" on Justia Law

On August 9, 2007, Philip Boude filed a Federal Employers' Liability Act claim against his employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company, asserting that he experienced a work-related injury on July 29, 2006 due to the Railroad's negligence. The jury ruled in favor of Union Pacific. Boude appealed, contending that the district court committed multiple errors during the trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Boude's termination of employment and the Public Law Board's decision affirming his termination, as the evidence was inadmissible on three separate stand-alone grounds; and (2) the admission of the evidence was prejudicial, and reversal was appropriate. View "Boude v. Union Pac. R.R. Co." on Justia Law