Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In 2021, the Montana Legislature passed House Bill 407 (HB 407), which preempted local ordinances, resolutions, initiatives, or referendums regulating the use, sale, or taxation of certain containers, including single-use plastics. Bozeman, which adopted a self-government charter in 2000, was affected by this bill. In 2023, a member of the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center submitted a local ballot initiative to regulate single-use plastics in Bozeman. The Gallatin County Election Administrator rejected the petition, citing the prohibition under § 7-5-131(2)(f), MCA. Cottonwood and other plaintiffs filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of HB 407.The First Judicial District Court granted Cottonwood's motion for partial summary judgment, finding § 7-5-131(2)(f), MCA, unconstitutional under Article XI, Section 8, of the Montana Constitution. The court certified its order as final, allowing the initiative to be placed on the 2024 general election ballot, where it passed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the Legislature may place limits on the powers of local government, including the power of local initiatives, as long as these limits do not infringe on other constitutional rights. The court found that § 7-1-111(21), MCA, which prohibits local government units with self-government powers from regulating auxiliary containers, is constitutional. Consequently, the court reversed the District Court's decision, holding that § 7-5-131(2)(f), MCA, is not facially unconstitutional under Article XI, Section 8, of the Montana Constitution. View "Cottonwood v. State" on Justia Law

Heather Rose Johnson was convicted of assault on a peace officer, driving under the influence, driving while suspended or revoked, and expired registration after a jury trial. The incident occurred on January 24, 2021, when Johnson, after drinking beer with a friend, drove to a gas station and was reported by a 911 caller for appearing intoxicated. Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office Sergeant Clarence Jessop stopped Johnson’s vehicle, observed signs of intoxication, and arrested her. During the arrest, Johnson kicked Sergeant Jessop, leading to the assault charge.The Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, admitted the 911 call in its entirety over Johnson’s hearsay objections. Johnson was convicted on all charges and sentenced. The court’s written judgment included an “Audit Hearing” condition not mentioned in the oral pronouncement of the sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court determined that the admission of the 911 call violated Johnson’s confrontation rights under the U.S. and Montana Constitutions because the caller’s statements that Johnson was intoxicated and about to commit DUI were testimonial. However, the court found this error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence against Johnson, including video footage and testimony from law enforcement officers.The court affirmed Johnson’s convictions but remanded the case to the District Court to strike the “Audit Hearing” condition from the written judgment, as it conflicted with the oral pronouncement of the sentence. View "State v. H. Johnson" on Justia Law

In January 2016, the State of Montana charged Lavodrick Terelle Hogues with felony aggravated promotion of prostitution involving a 17-year-old female, Jane Doe. The charge stemmed from an undercover operation where officers discovered Doe and another woman, Phylicia Zubia, offering escort services online. Evidence linked Hogues to the operation through phone records, MoneyGram transfers, and other communications.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Yellowstone County handled the initial proceedings. Hogues faced multiple delays due to changes in legal representation and his own absconding. He eventually requested to represent himself, which the court granted four days before trial. The court also allowed Jane Doe to testify via remote video due to travel burdens and pandemic concerns, despite Hogues' objections.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court's decision to allow Hogues to represent himself, finding that he had made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. However, the court reversed the decision to admit Jane Doe's remote testimony. The court held that the State failed to demonstrate that her in-person testimony was impracticable or that remote testimony was necessary to further an important public policy. The court emphasized the importance of face-to-face confrontation under the Sixth Amendment and Montana Constitution.The Montana Supreme Court concluded that the denial of Hogues' right to face-to-face confrontation was not harmless error, given Jane Doe's critical role as the alleged victim. Consequently, the court reversed Hogues' conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. L. Hogues" on Justia Law