Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On May 4, 2010, Defendant was arrested and cited with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), driving while license suspended, and traveling the wrong way on a one-way street. On September 18, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The justice court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that the six-month limit of Mont. Code Ann. 46-13-401(2) had not been violated because most of the delay was attributable to Defendant. After a trial at which Defendant failed to appear, the justice court found Defendant guilty of DUI per se and driving the wrong direction on a one-way street. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court affirmed, concluding that Defendant had disengaged from the process, and therefore, Defendant’s right to a speedy trial had not been violated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly refused to reverse the justice court’s decision, as Defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. View "State v. Hodge" on Justia Law

The State charged Appellant, a forty-year-old developmentally disabled man, with three counts of felony sexual intercourse without consent and one count of felony sexual assault. Appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault, and the district court accepted the plea. The district court subsequently sentenced Appellant to forty years imprisonment. Nearly one year after issuance of an amended judgment, Appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court concluded that Appellant’s motion was timely brought but refused to allow Appellant to withdraw his guilty plea, finding it had been entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s motion to withdraw plea was not time-barred; and (2) the district court did not err when it concluded that Appellant’s guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. View "State v. Garner" on Justia Law

After the City decided to undertake road improvements along South Avenue in Missoula, Montana, Plaintiffs, a group of landowners who owned property along South Avenue, contested the City’s assessment of the width of the right-of-way on a section of the street. The district court concluded that the City’s actions constituted a taking. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded for a redetermination of damages. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing asking the Court to award both attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the appeal. The Supreme Court denied the petition. On remand, Plaintiffs agreed to reduce their “taken property” value and asked the district court to assess both attorney’s fees and costs against the City for the appeal. The district court determined that Plaintiffs were the prevailing party on appeal and awarded them appellate attorney’s fees and costs. The City appealed, arguing that the Court’s refusal to award fees in its order on rehearing constituted “law of the case.” The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s award of appellate attorney’s fees and costs, holding that the district court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs had a constitutional right to be made whole through an award of attorney fees and costs on appeal. View "Wohl v. City of Missoula" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded not guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol, obstructing a peace officer, and driving while license suspended. Defendant filed two motions to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, contending that the City had not diligently prosecuted the case. The municipal court denied both motions, concluding that Defendant’s conduct had caused the delay. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of obstructing a police officer and driving while license suspended. The district court affirmed the municipal court’s orders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the municipal court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions to dismiss, as Defendant’s rights to a speedy trial were not violated. View "City of Kalispell v. Gabbert" on Justia Law

Appellant petitioned for release of certain documents under the Right to Know provision of Mont. Const. art. II, 9 from the Cascade County Attorney relating to the termination of a county detention officer, Jason Carroll. The district court granted summary judgment against Appellant. Appellant moved for reconsideration in light of the recently decided Schoof v. Nesbit. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Appellant's situation was distinguishable from Schoof because Appellant, who was neither a resident nor subject to the jurisdiction of Cascade County, lacked standing to request the documents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Article II, Section 9 grants a right to judicial relief to a Montana citizen alleging denial of access to a document of a Montana public body; and (2) as a Montana citizen, Appellant had standing to bring his claim. View "Shockley v. Cascade County" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. Defendant appealed, arguing that the municipal court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an investigative stop. Specifically, Defendant claimed that the ordinances of the City of Missoula that impose a $500 fine for refusing to give a breath sample were invalid and that the arresting officer unlawfully administered a breath test despite her initial refusal. The district court affirmed the decision of the municipal court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Missoula has authority to enact ordinances creating a misdemeanor penalty for the refusal to submit to a requested breath test; (2) the arresting officer did not violate statutory procedures by administering a post-arrest breath test with Defendant’s consent; and (3) the Missoula ordinances criminalizing the refusal to submit to a breath test do not unconstitutionally impair Defendant’s freedom of speech. View "City of Missoula v. Armitage" on Justia Law

In 2002, Elizabeth “Betsy” Baumgart was appointed to be the administrator of the Montana Tourism and Promotion Division of the Department of Commerce (DOC). In 2010, after Dore Schwinden was appointed as DOC director, Schwinden terminated Baumgart’s employment, citing a lack of management competencies and sufficient understanding of the Division’s budgeting process. Baumgart sued the DOC and Schwinden, individually and as DOC’s agent, alleging that DOC wrongfully discharged her and discriminated against her on political grounds because she was a Republican and Schwinden was a Democrat. The district court granted DOC’s motion for summary judgment as it pertained to Baumgart’s political affiliation discrimination claims and all claims against Schwinden. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Baumgart failed to establish a prima facie case for political discrimination, the district court did not err in granting DOC’s motion for summary judgment on this issue; (2) the district court correctly dismissed the individual claims against Schwinden, as Schwinden was entitled to statutory immunity under the circumstances of this case; and (3) the district court correctly concluded that the DOC had good cause to terminate Baumgart.View "Baumgart v. Dep’t of Commerce" on Justia Law

Martin Vincent Lau was charged with deliberate homicide. Lau claimed that the fatal shooting was an act of self-defense. Lau sought to offer his own out-of-court statement to prove that at the time of the shooting, he knew of specific instances of violence by the victim. The State moved in limine to prohibit Lau from introducing the statement on hearsay grounds. Lau, in turn, argued that the exclusion of his statement would limit his ability to put forth a defense and that he would be required to testify in order to establish his knowledge of specific instances of conduct by the victim. The district court ruled that Lau would be permitted to cross-examine witnesses about the victim's specific acts of violence and Lau’s knowledge of those acts, as contained in his statement. The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for writ of supervisory control, holding that the Montana Rules of Evidence did not permit Lau to offer his own out-of-court statement in support of his claim of justifiable use of force.View "State v. District Court" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with trespass to property and possession of dangerous drugs, both misdemeanor offenses. Defendant subsequently decided to enroll in the Mineral County Treatment Court. Defendant was aware that he could be sanctioned with incarceration if he was dishonest during his participation in the Treatment Court. During his participation in the Treatment Court Defendant tested positive for drug use and was interviewed by the Treatment Team regarding the results. Subsequently, a member of the Treatment Team sent a report to law enforcement detailing the information he learned from the interviews with Defendant. Defendant was subsequently charged with distribution of dangerous drugs and two counts of possession of dangerous drugs. Defendant filed motions to suppress and dismiss, arguing that the State violated the confidentiality provision of Mont. Code Ann. 46-1-1111(4) and his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination by disclosing the confidential Treatment Court material to law enforcement. The district court denied the motions. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motions to suppress and dismiss, holding that the State violated section 46-1-1111(4) by disclosing confidential drug testing information to law enforcement in order to investigate a new criminal offense.View "State v. Plouffe" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging that the State had failed to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence relevant to the case in violation of Brady v. Maryland and that his trial attorneys failed to provide effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant’s postconviction petition because the petition did not fulfill the elements of a Brady violation; and (2) any alleged error on the part of trial counsel did not prejudice Defendant, and therefore, the trial court did not err in concluding that Defendant had not received ineffective assistance of counsel.View "McGarvey v. State" on Justia Law