Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision upholding the decision of the hearing officer with the Montana Human Rights Bureau (HRB) in favor of All Star Painting on Plaintiff’s complaint alleging that the company’s owner had sexually harassed her at work. The Court held (1) the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s petition for judicial review because the hearing officer’s decision either ignored the testimony of four individuals, all of whom corroborated Plaintiff’s testimony, or misapprehended the effect of that evidence; and (2) the district court properly dismissed All Star Painting’s owner as a party to the action because he was never properly added as a party under Mont. R. Civ. P. 20. View "Jones v. All Star Painting Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision upholding the decision of the hearing officer with the Montana Human Rights Bureau (HRB) in favor of All Star Painting on Plaintiff’s complaint alleging that the company’s owner had sexually harassed her at work. The Court held (1) the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s petition for judicial review because the hearing officer’s decision either ignored the testimony of four individuals, all of whom corroborated Plaintiff’s testimony, or misapprehended the effect of that evidence; and (2) the district court properly dismissed All Star Painting’s owner as a party to the action because he was never properly added as a party under Mont. R. Civ. P. 20. View "Jones v. All Star Painting Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence for three separate cases involving partner or family member assault against three different women to a combined twenty years, with eight suspended. The district court included conditions in all three cases that restricted contact between Defendant and his victims. On appeal, Defendant argued that the condition prohibiting contact between him and his second victim was an unreasonable sentencing condition and an unconstitutional restriction on his common-law marriage. The Supreme Court held (1) the contested condition was not an unreasonable sentencing condition; and (2) Defendant’s general objection to the restricted contact conditions was insufficient to preserve his argument that the conditions unconstitutionally infringe upon his marriage, privacy, and due process rights. View "State v. Parkhill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence for three separate cases involving partner or family member assault against three different women to a combined twenty years, with eight suspended. The district court included conditions in all three cases that restricted contact between Defendant and his victims. On appeal, Defendant argued that the condition prohibiting contact between him and his second victim was an unreasonable sentencing condition and an unconstitutional restriction on his common-law marriage. The Supreme Court held (1) the contested condition was not an unreasonable sentencing condition; and (2) Defendant’s general objection to the restricted contact conditions was insufficient to preserve his argument that the conditions unconstitutionally infringe upon his marriage, privacy, and due process rights. View "State v. Parkhill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of aggravated assault and reversed his conviction for violating a no-contact order. The Court held (1) the State did not present sufficient evidence for the jury to find Defendant guilty of violating a no-contact order; and (2) the prosecutor’s comment during rebuttal closing argument that the jury’s “job” was to ensure the alleged victim’s safety was improper, and the nature of the remark implicated Defendant’s right to a fair trial, but this isolated incident of alleged misconduct did not result in a miscarriage of justice or compromise the integrity of Defendant’s trial. View "State v. Ritesman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for operating a noncommercial vehicle with alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more (DUI per se) but reversed the district court’s order imposing the cost of legal counsel on Defendant. The court held (1) Defendant’s right to due process was not violated by a jury instruction that instructed the jurors, when choosing between two competing interpretations of circumstances evidence, to choose whichever interpretation was the “most reasonable”; but (2) the district court erred in imposing costs of legal counsel on Defendant given Defendant’s limited fixed income and disability status. View "State v. Iverson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court awarding summary judgment to the Missoula County Detention Facility and the Missoula County Sheriff’s Office (collectively, the County) on Plaintiff’s claim that the County had illegally discriminated against him based on his disability. Plaintiff initially filed a complaint with the Human Rights Bureau (HRB), which found no reasonable cause to believe that the County had discriminated against Plaintiff. The district court agreed. The Supreme Court Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in declining to consider evidence arising after Plaintiff filed his HRB complaint; and (2) the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the County. View "Borges v. Missoula County Sheriff’s Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court awarding summary judgment to the Missoula County Detention Facility and the Missoula County Sheriff’s Office (collectively, the County) on Plaintiff’s claim that the County had illegally discriminated against him based on his disability. Plaintiff initially filed a complaint with the Human Rights Bureau (HRB), which found no reasonable cause to believe that the County had discriminated against Plaintiff. The district court agreed. The Supreme Court Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in declining to consider evidence arising after Plaintiff filed his HRB complaint; and (2) the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the County. View "Borges v. Missoula County Sheriff’s Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant’s request for substitution of counsel in this criminal proceeding.Appellant pleaded guilty to deliberate homicide. Thereafter, Appellant made a request for substitution of counsel. After a hearing, the district court deemed the representation matter resolved because the Office of the State Public Defender denied Appellant’s request for new counsel and Appellant had not appealed that decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the district court failed adequately to inquire into Defendant’s complaints regarding his counsel, which necessitated a remand. On remand, the district court issued an order again denying Appellant’s request for substitution of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it inquired into Appellant’s complaints of ineffective assistance of counsel and in denying his request for substitution of counsel. View "State v. Schowengerdt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court wherein Defendant pled guilty to felony driving under the influence of alcohol, fourth or subsequent offense, and three misdemeanors. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court violated his right to due process during sentencing and erred in sentencing him, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for entry of an amended judgment, holding (1) the district court did not deprive Defendant of his right to due process during sentencing; (2) the district court did not err in imposing a condition on Defendant’s suspended sentence; (3) Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel during sentencing; and (4) the sentencing conditions in the written judgment should be amended to conform to oral pronouncement of the conditions. View "State v. Lafield" on Justia Law