Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled no contest to the felony offense of mitigated deliberate homicide. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea, which the district court denied. Appellant appealed from the denial of his motion but later waived his appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel against his trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied Appellant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief, holding (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to provide to Appellant a copy of a report by a forensic pathologist, but Appellant was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s error; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that appellate counsel was deficient by advising Appellant to withdraw his direct appeal in order to file a petition for postconviction relief. View "Haagenson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of accountability for arson, a felony, and accountability for theft, a felony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) defense counsel’s failure to offer a “mere presence” jury instruction constituted deficient performance under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington, counsel’s conduct fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness,” and Defendant was prejudiced by her counsel’s inadequate performance; and (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by telling the jurors to base their decision on factors other than the law and evidence. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Chafee" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offenses of felony DUI and criminal endangerment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test taken pursuant to a search warrant because once he refused to cooperate in sobriety tests, Montana law prohibited law enforcement officers from taking any action to obtain a blood sample for testing. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that the law enforcement officers in this case acted in accordance with the principles of Montana law in obtaining a search warrant for Defendant’s blood. View "State v. Minett" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault with a weapon, criminal endangerment, and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. The district court sentenced Defendant to a total of thirty years in prison with five years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) plain error review of Defendant’s contention that the failure to immediately assign him counsel violated his constitutional and statutory rights was not warranted here; (2) the district court did not err in refusing Defendant’s proposed jury instructions regarding factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness identification; (3) the district court erred by admitting evidence of condoms found in Defendant’s van, but the error was harmless; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to declare a mistrial based on the court’s comments to a co-conspirator. View "State v. Zlahn" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with ninety-one counts of felony cruelty to animals after law enforcement officers applied for and obtained a warrant to search Defendant’s home and kennels, where Defendant bred Malamutes. The dogs were found to be ill and malnourished. One hundred and thirty-nine adult dogs and twenty-three puppies were seized. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding, among other things, that probable cause was well established. Defendant was subsequently convicted as charged, and the district court ordered the forfeiture of every seized dog. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) did not abuse its discretion in limiting evidence to the time period of the charged offenses; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in requiring Defendant to forfeit all of his dogs. View "State v. Chilinski" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with, among other offenses, aggravated DUI. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that Mark Fiorentino, an off-duty officer who arrested Defendant, lacked probable cause to effectuate a citizen’s arrest. The municipal court denied the motion, holding that the off-duty officer had probable cause to arrest Defendant under the circumstances. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol, reserving the right to appeal the suppression order. The district court affirmed the municipal court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that Fiorentino had probable cause to arrest Defendant and that the existing circumstances required Defendant’s immediate arrest. View "City of Missoula v. Iosefo" on Justia Law

The municipal court found Defendant guilty of disorderly conduct after Defendant and her daughter directed profane ad abusive language toward a thirteen-year-old boy from their vehicle on a public street. The district court affirmed Defendant’s conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, among other things, that (1) the disorderly conduct statute does not require proof that the peace of more than one person was disturbed; (2) Defendant’s speech constituted “fighting words” and was not constitutionally protected; (3) Defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by the responding officer’s initial report of his investigation; and (4) the municipal court did not err by considering the victim’s age during sentencing. View "City of Billings v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony burglary in 2007. The Flathead County District Court issued a warrant for Defendant’s arrest, but shortly afterward, Defendant was arrested and sentenced on unrelated federal charges. Defendant was subsequently committed to a federal correctional institution. In 2013, Defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss the Flathead County arrest warrant, arguing that the county attorney’s failure to take action on his pending burglary charge violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The county attorney argued in response that Defendant’s motion must be denied because an inmate may invoke the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) only after a detainer is filed. The District Court denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant’s motion was premised on an alleged denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, not the IAD; and (2) the district court improperly denied Defendant’s motion without addressing his speedy trial rights. Remanded. View "State v. Nickerson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, registered voters seeking to invalidate the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission’s (Commission) assignment of two “holdover senators” in its final 2013 redistricting plan, filed a complaint against the State and Secretary of State (collectively, "State") seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The district court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that (1) the Commission did not violate the public’s “right to know”; (2) the Commission is part of the legislative branch and is not an agency, and that it is therefore exempt from statutes promulgating the right of participation; and (3) Plaintiffs’ argument that the Commission violated Plaintiffs’ right of suffrage was without merit. View "Willems v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested after law enforcement officers responded to a report that Defendant had stolen a purse and, after conducting a warrant check, learned that Defendant had an outstanding city warrant. At the detention center, officers conducted an inventory search of Defendant’s purse and found drugs and drug paraphernalia. The State charged Defendant with criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress or dismiss, which the district court denied. Defendant pleaded guilty to both counts. Defendant subsequently appealed the denial of her motion to suppress and dismiss, asking the Supreme Court to overturn State v. Pastos, in which the Court held that a compelling state interest justifies a routine, administrative inventory search of the personal property in the possession of the arrestee at the station house following a lawful arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion and, in so doing, reaffirmed its decision in Pastos, holding (1) safety concerns and procedural safeguards justify the inventory searches at issue; and (2) the search of Defendant’s purse was a valid inventory search under Pastos. View "State v. Demontiney" on Justia Law