Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Planned Parenthood of Montana and Dr. Samuel Dickman challenged three laws passed by the 2021 Montana Legislature regulating abortion care. The laws included a 20-week ban on abortions (HB 136), restrictions on medication abortions and requirements for informed consent (HB 171), and a mandate for providers to offer patients the opportunity to view an ultrasound and listen to a fetal heart tone before an abortion (HB 140).The Thirteenth Judicial District Court granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of these laws, which was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court. Following discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, concluding that the laws violated the Montana Constitution's guarantees of individual privacy, equal protection, and free speech. The court permanently enjoined the enforcement of all three laws.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that the 20-week ban on abortions (HB 136) violated the right to privacy because it prohibited pre-viability abortions and was not justified by a compelling state interest. The Court also found that the restrictions on medication abortions and the informed consent requirements (HB 171) infringed on the right to privacy and free speech, as they imposed unnecessary burdens on patients and providers without addressing a bona fide health risk. Lastly, the Court held that the mandate to offer patients the opportunity to view an ultrasound and listen to a fetal heart tone (HB 140) violated the right to privacy by interfering with the patient-provider relationship without a compelling state interest.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment, permanently enjoining the enforcement of the challenged laws. View "Planned Parenthood v. State" on Justia Law

In 1992, the defendant was sentenced to 100 years in prison for deliberate homicide, with an additional 10-year enhancement for weapon use. In 2008, he became parole eligible but was consistently denied parole. In 2018, he planned an escape from prison, involving two former prisoners. He used a cellphone to coordinate the escape, but prison staff discovered his plan and transferred him to more secure housing. Despite this, he continued to communicate with one of the former prisoners to delete incriminating evidence.The Third Judicial District Court in Powell County found the defendant guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Escape and Conspiracy to Commit Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence. He was sentenced to 8 years for each count, to run concurrently but consecutively to his prior sentence. The court dismissed charges of Transferring of Illegal Articles and Solicitation to Commit Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Person. The defendant appealed, arguing his sentence violated his First Amendment rights and that there was insufficient evidence for the tampering conviction. He also sought pretrial credit for time served.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the defendant did not properly object to his sentence on First Amendment grounds during the trial, and thus did not preserve the issue for appeal. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the tampering conviction, as the defendant's actions demonstrated an intent to delete incriminating evidence. Lastly, the court ruled that the defendant was not entitled to pretrial credit for time served, as he was already serving a sentence for a prior conviction and was not detained specifically for the new charges. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "State v. Demarie" on Justia Law

Montana Environmental Information Center and Earthworks (MEIC) submitted a formal information request to the Office of the Governor of Montana on November 29, 2021. The request sought various documents related to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) dismissal of an enforcement action against Hecla Mining and its President/CEO, as well as information on the Governor’s Office’s involvement in mining and environmental decision-making. The Governor’s Office did not respond to the request, prompting MEIC to follow up multiple times. When the requested records were not provided, MEIC filed a lawsuit against the Governor’s Office, seeking to compel production of the information.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County found that the Governor’s Office had a clear legal duty to honor MEIC’s request and issued a writ of mandamus compelling the production of the information. The Governor’s Office initially appealed but later stipulated to dismissal. MEIC then requested attorney’s fees, which the District Court denied, citing the Governor’s Office’s lack of bad faith and the potential for MEIC to obtain the information through other means.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and addressed whether a party who successfully vindicates its right to know under the Montana Constitution is entitled to a presumption towards awarding attorney’s fees. The Court held that there should be a presumption towards awarding attorney’s fees to plaintiffs who successfully enforce their right to know, as this encourages public engagement and enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court vacated the District Court’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration of the attorney’s fees request, considering the presumption towards awarding fees and costs. View "MEIC v. Governor" on Justia Law

In 1982, William Clark was convicted of eight counts of sexual intercourse without consent and was designated a dangerous offender, receiving a 30-year prison sentence for each count, to run concurrently. After being paroled, Clark sought relief from the sex offender registration requirement in 2005, which was denied by the district court. The court found that Clark was not eligible for relief under the 2005 Sexual and Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA) because the victim was compelled to submit by force. This decision was affirmed on appeal.Clark again petitioned for relief in 2024, citing the Montana Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hinman, which held that the 2007 SVORA amendments were punitive and could not be applied retroactively. The State opposed, arguing that Clark remained subject to the 2005 SVORA requirements, which mandated lifetime registration. The Ninth Judicial District Court denied Clark's petition, maintaining that he must continue to register for life under the 2005 SVORA.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the lower court's decision. The Court held that the 2005 SVORA, which was determined to be a civil regulatory scheme and not punitive, could be applied retroactively. Since Clark's offenses occurred before the 2007 amendments, he remained subject to the 2005 SVORA, which required lifetime registration due to the nature of his offense involving force. The Court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that there was no violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws. View "Clark v. State" on Justia Law

Leslie Dean Ernst pleaded guilty to five felony counts of Privacy in Communications in violation of Montana law. He later sought to withdraw his guilty pleas and reduce two of the felony convictions to misdemeanors, which the District Court denied. Ernst appealed the decision.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court initially sentenced Ernst to 25 years in prison with a 15-year parole restriction. Ernst appealed, and the case was remanded for resentencing due to a missing transcript. Before resentencing, Ernst moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, arguing that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional based on a prior court decision. The District Court denied his motion, finding that Ernst had not shown his prior convictions were unconstitutional. Ernst was resentenced to the same 25-year term with a 15-year parole restriction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Ernst was charged, convicted, and sentenced under the constitutional portion of the Privacy in Communications statute. The court found that the charging documents, plea agreement, and sentencing did not rely on the unconstitutional prima facie provision. The court also determined that Ernst's guilty plea colloquy was sufficient to establish his intent to harass, annoy, or offend his victims, as required by the statute.Additionally, the court held that Ernst failed to provide direct evidence that his prior convictions were unconstitutional. The presumption of regularity attached to his prior convictions, and Ernst did not meet his burden to show they were invalid. Consequently, the court affirmed the District Court's denial of Ernst's motions and upheld his sentence. View "State v. Ernst" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Beth Cummings and Dena Burnham Johnson, filed a petition to annul or void an election that provided additional funds for the Great Falls Public Library. They alleged discrepancies in the election process, including a mathematical error in the ballot and a lack of clear information provided to voters. The election, held in June 2023, resulted in the approval of a mill levy increase to support the library.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Montana dismissed the plaintiffs' petition under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a legally cognizable claim. The court found that the plaintiffs' allegations did not demonstrate a violation of their constitutional rights to suffrage or due process. The court also noted that the mathematical error on the ballot was minor and did not mislead voters to the extent that it would invalidate the election results. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiffs' claims of election law violations were not applicable to the mill levy election.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs' right of suffrage was not violated, as they were not prevented from voting and were not misled by the ballot language. The court also concluded that the due process claim was unfounded, as the election process and materials provided sufficient information to voters. Furthermore, the court agreed with the lower court that the plaintiffs' claims under state election laws were not relevant to the mill levy election.The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend their petition, finding that the proposed amendments would be futile and would cause substantial prejudice to the defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' additional legal arguments did not present a valid controversy and that the defendants had already expended significant resources in the case. View "Cummings v. Kelly" on Justia Law

Bradley Hillious was charged with deliberate homicide for the death of his wife, Amanda, who was found unresponsive at the bottom of a staircase and later died from strangulation and blunt-force injuries. Prior to trial, Hillious sought to exclude certain statements Amanda made before her death, including a petition for a temporary order of protection (TOP) and text messages to a coworker. The District Court denied the motion to exclude the TOP petition and deferred ruling on the text messages until trial.The Eleventh Judicial District Court in Flathead County convicted Hillious of deliberate homicide. Hillious filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury panel was improperly assembled because the clerk did not certify non-responding jurors to the sheriff for personal service, as required by Montana law. The District Court denied the motion, finding that the clerk's method of jury selection did not undermine the randomness or objectivity of the process.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The Court held that the clerk's failure to certify non-responding jurors for personal service was a technical violation that did not affect the randomness or objectivity of the jury selection process. The Court also found that Hillious's motion for a new trial was untimely and that he failed to show good cause for the delay. Additionally, the Court held that the admission of the TOP petition violated Hillious's Confrontation Clause rights but concluded that the error was harmless given the other evidence presented at trial. View "State v. Hillious" on Justia Law

Garrett Alan Lee, a 25-year-old, engaged in an online conversation with an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a 12-year-old girl. Lee discussed meeting the girl for sex and was apprehended by law enforcement when he arrived at the arranged location. He was charged with Sexual Abuse of Children under Montana law and pleaded guilty.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court sentenced Lee to 100 years at the Montana State Prison, with 65 years suspended, and imposed a 25-year parole restriction. Lee appealed, arguing that the mandatory 25-year parole restriction was unconstitutional and that the District Court violated his due process rights by considering information from a prior psychosexual examination not admitted into evidence.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that Lee's constitutional and statutory arguments concerning the mandatory parole restriction were not properly before the court because he was not sentenced under the mandatory minimum provision. Instead, the District Court imposed the parole restriction under its discretionary sentencing power. The court also found that Lee's due process rights were not violated, as he had the opportunity to rebut or correct any information in the presentence investigation report, and the information was not materially false.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment, concluding that Lee's sentence was legal and within the statutory parameters. The court declined to review the constitutional and statutory claims related to the mandatory parole restriction and did not find plain error in the due process claim. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

Jayson O’Neill requested to examine certain documents from the Office of the Governor of Montana, specifically 2021 Agency Bill Monitoring Forms (ABMs) and related emails. The Governor’s office denied the request, citing attorney-client privilege. O’Neill argued that the documents should be produced with redactions and a detailed privilege log. The Governor’s office maintained that the documents were entirely privileged but offered to provide a privilege log and documents for in camera review if directed by a court.O’Neill filed a complaint seeking an order to produce the requested documents under Article II, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution. The Governor asserted executive and deliberative process privileges. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The First Judicial District Court partially granted O’Neill’s motion, holding that Montana law did not recognize executive or deliberative process privileges and required in camera review to determine the applicability of attorney-client privilege and privacy exceptions. The Governor’s subsequent motion for relief from judgment was deemed denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Montana law does recognize a form of gubernatorial privilege rooted in the state’s constitutional history, allowing the Governor to receive candid advice necessary for executing constitutional duties. However, this privilege is not absolute and must be assessed through in camera review to determine if the information is essential and if its disclosure would chill future candor. The court reversed the lower court’s ruling that no form of executive privilege is recognized in Montana but affirmed the need for in camera review to evaluate the claims of privilege. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "O'Neill v. Gianforte" on Justia Law

A group of 16 youths sued the State of Montana, the Governor, and multiple state agencies, alleging that the State's actions exacerbated the harm they were experiencing from climate change. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, specifically challenging certain provisions of Montana's State Energy Policy Act and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) as unconstitutional. The plaintiffs argued that these provisions violated their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by promoting fossil fuel development and prohibiting the consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in environmental reviews.The First Judicial District Court found in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the challenged provisions unconstitutional and enjoining the State from acting in accordance with them. The court concluded that the right to a clean and healthful environment includes a stable climate system and that the MEPA Limitation violated this right. The court also denied the State's motion for psychiatric examinations of the plaintiffs, finding no good cause for such examinations.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution includes a stable climate system. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the MEPA Limitation, as it infringed on their constitutional rights. The court also held that the MEPA Limitation was unconstitutional because it arbitrarily excluded GHG emissions from environmental reviews, thereby violating the plaintiffs' right to a clean and healthful environment. The court affirmed the permanent injunction against the State from acting in accordance with the unconstitutional provisions. View "Held v. State" on Justia Law