Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving her right to appeal the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress. Defendant appealed, arguing that her motion to suppress should have been granted because she was illegally seized when she admitted she had contraband in her purse and consented to a search and, thus, that her admission and consent must be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal seizure. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant and reversed, holding that no objective facts justified the seizure of Defendant, and therefore, the seizure was illegal and all evidence obtained as a result of it must be suppressed. Remanded. View "State v. Emerson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of deliberate homicide and sentenced to forty years in prison. Defendant later filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he had discovered new evidence warranting a new trial. The district court denied Defendant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court failed adequately to address Defendant’s newly discovered evidence claim, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the district court erred by determining, on this record, that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because the court misapprehended the law and misapprehended the effect of Defendant’s evidence. View "Wilkes v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged in municipal court with misdemeanor cruelty to animals. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty. The district court affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erred when it affirmed the municipal court decision allowing a witness to testify via Skype. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation was not violated under the circumstances of this case by the district court’s decision to allow the Skype testimony; and (2) the district court erred in concluding that Mont. R. Evid. 611(e) was “generally applicable to civil actions and not criminal cases,” but the error was harmless. View "City of Missoula v. Duane" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal endangerment and one count of assaulting a peace officer. Before the sentencing hearing, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to a total of thirty years with five years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that his right to a speedy trial was violated by pre-trial and pre-sentencing delays. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because this case was pending on direct review when State v. Betterman was decided, the holding in Betterman retroactively applies; (2) Defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated as a result of excessive pre-trial delays caused by the State; and (3) Defendant’s right to due process was not violated as a result of post-conviction, pre-sentencing delays caused by the State. View "State v. Maloney" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI) per se, fourth-offense, a felony. Before sentencing, Defendant moved to dismiss the felony DUI charge or, alternatively, to amend the charge to a misdemeanor, alleging in her supporting affidavit that her 2003 DUI conviction was constitutionally inform because she was not told that she had a right to an attorney, and therefore, the 2003 DUI could not be used to enhance her current DUI charge to a felony. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant could not submit an affidavit without being subject to cross-examination as to the affidavit’s contents, and therefore, Defendant suffered no prejudice from the district court compelling her to testify. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Legislature enacted the Montana 24/7 Sobriety Program Act, which permits a court, as a condition of pretrial release of an individual accused of a drunk driving offense, to require the individual to submit to twice-daily alcohol breath tests. The justice court in this case ordered Defendant to participate in the 24/7 Sobriety Program as a condition of his release on bond. Defendant missed three tests while enrolled in the program and was charged with criminal contempt for the missed tests. Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to the contempt charges. Defendant appealed to the district court and moved to dismiss the contempt charges. The district court granted the motion and concluded that the 24/7 Program was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the breath tests required by the 24/7 Sobriety Program constitute a search, but the search does not violate proscriptions against unreasonable searches; and (2) court-ordered enrollment in the 24/7 Program does not impose pretrial punishment or violate provisions against excessive bail, but the court is required to condition pretrial release on participation in the program only after conducting an individualized assessment to determine if each defendant is an appropriate candidate for the program. Remanded. View "State v. Spady" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault with a weapon and partner or family member assault. During the trial, the prosecution sought to admit portions of a transcript from a civil order of protection hearing at which Defendant’s ex-wife testified to violence by Defendant. The district court found that the ex-wife’s statements satisfied the requirements of Mont. R. Evid. 804(b)(1)(B) and admitted the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s confrontation rights were violated when prior testimony from the civil order of protection hearing was read at his criminal trial and that the admission of the testimony of Defendant’s ex-wife was not harmless. View "State v. Pingree" on Justia Law

A police officer stopped Defendant’s car after recognizing him as a person who had a suspended driver’s license. The officer placed Defendant under arrest and conducted a pat-down search leading to the discovery of a prescription medication bottle in the cuff of Defendant’s leg. Defendant later pleaded guilty to felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the contents of the prescription bottle seized at the time of his arrest, arguing that the opening of the pill bottle was an illegal search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the pill bottle because he claimed no ownership of the bottle or its contents, and therefore, there was no search in the constitutional sense. View "State v. McKeever" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s position of employment with the Emergency Services Division of the State of Montana Department of Military Affairs was eliminated during implementation of the Division’s reduction-in-force policy. After her position was eliminated, Plaintiff filed a grievance with the Department of Labor and Industry Hearings Bureau alleging that the Division terminated her in retaliation for her complaint that sexual favoritism had occurred within the Division. The Bureau dismissed the complaint, and Plaintiff chose not to appeal. Instead, Plaintiff filed a discrimination complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau of the Department of Labor and Industry, restating her claims. The Department dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff later filed the present complaint in the district court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred under the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by holding that Plaintiff’s claims were subject to the procedures set forth in the MHRA, and as a result were time-barred. View "Lay v. Dep’t of Military Affairs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a veteran suffered from service-connected physical conditions, including a seizure disorder, and he had a service dog that alerted him to oncoming seizures. When staff at the C’Mon Inn, a hotel in Bozeman, Montana, staff refused to allow Plaintiff to register because he was accompanied by his service dog, Plaintiff called 911 and complained that the hotel was discriminating against him by refusing him entry, three Bozeman Police Department officers responded. The officers told Plaintiff he would have to leave but informed Plaintiff that he could file a complaint if he wished. Plaintiff filed this action against the Bozeman Police Department contending that the responding officers violated the Human Rights Act when they “aided, abetted and facilitated” the hotel’s discrimination against him. The district court granted summary judgment to the Bozeman Police Department. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no evidence that the officers aided or abetted C’Mon Inn’s conduct. View "Hansen v. Bozeman Police Dep’t" on Justia Law