Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of sexual intercourse without consent, holding that Defendant's constitutional right to confront his accusers was violated during his second criminal trial.The victim, T.C., was thirteen years old, deaf, and developmentally delayed. During trial, the district court found T.C. incompetent and declared a mistrial. At the second trial, Defendant objected to the hearsay testimony from five witnesses who would testify to what T.C. told them. Defendant argued that his right to confrontation was violated when he was denied his request to interview or depose T.C. and when he could not cross-examine T.C. during trial. Defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting T.C. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the court admitted testimony from three witnesses about T.C.'s out-of-court statements without Defendant having a prior opportunity to cross-examine T.C., and the error was not harmless. View "State v. Tome" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for felony driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) and misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer, holding that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel and that Defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance.At issue was whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to object to an incorrect jury instruction, which lowered the State's burden of proof on the offense of obstructing a peace officer. The Supreme Court held that Defendant did receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorneys neither objected to the incorrect instruction nor proposed the correct one themselves and that a new trial was warranted. View "State v. Secrease" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's pro se motion to vacate and challenge to jurisdiction and the subsequent order of revocation and imposition of sentence revoking Defendant's previous sentence and sentencing him for failure to register as a sexual offender, holding that the State's delay in bringing Defendant to Montana to appear before a judge in his revocation proceeding violated his right to due process.Defendant pled guilty to failure to register as a sexual offender and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which was suspended. The State later filed a petition for revocation of sentence, alleging that Defendant violated the terms of his probation and absconded from supervision. Defendant was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury for failing to register as a sex offender after traveling from Montana to New York. Defendant's federal charge was later dismissed, and Defendant personally appeared in the district court. The court then revoked Defendant's prior sentence and imposed a sentence of almost three years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State violated Defendant's right to due process by failing to bring him before a judge to answer his revocation proceedings for nearly two years. View "State v. Cameron" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order and judgment issued by the district court following Defendant's convictions for sexual assault, three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, and sexual abuse of children, holding that the district court erred by misapplying Montana's rape shield statute, Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-511(2), and violated Defendant's constitutional confrontation rights.After the State charged Defendant with sexually assaulting I.A., a female minor, law enforcement received a tip that Cody Hill and I.A. were involved in an inappropriate sexual relationship. The State subsequently charged Hill was sexually abusing I.A. Defendant sought a motion to compel seeking confidential criminal justice information from the criminal file regarding Hill. The district court denied Defendant's motion to compel and convicted Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by not requiring the State to provide additional confidential criminal justice information from the Hill investigation; but (2) erred by misapplying the rape shield statute and violated Defendant's constitutional right to confront his accuser and present evidence in his defense by disallowing evidence that Hill abused I.A. in an identical manner less than two weeks before the incident at issue in this case. View "State v. Twardoski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and commitment of the district court following Defendant's felony convictions of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault, holding that the district court did not commit reversible error by answering a question posed by the jury without consulting the parties.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the Court should exercise plain error review regarding his claims about expert testimony undermining his presumption of innocence; and (3) the district court erred by answering a jury question during deliberation without consulting the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court declines to consider Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal; (2) this Court declines to exercise plain error review regarding Defendant's claims about expert witness testimony; and (3) the district court did not commit reversible error by answering the jury's question without consulting the parties. View "State v. Sinz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming Defendant's jury conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, holding that Defendant was denied his confrontation rights.On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence stemming from the stop of the vehicle and argued that the justice court improperly allowed a State witness to appear by two-way video at trial. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the trooper lawfully stopped and detained Defendant; and (2) reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that the justice court violated Defendant's right to confrontation when it allowed Defendant to testify via two-way video. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress his text message conversation with an undercover federal agent and to dismiss the charge of patronizing prostitution, holding that the district court did not err.From his cell phone, Defendant responded to an ad placed in a warrantless internet sting operation. Thereafter, Defendant engaged in a text message conversation with "Lily," an undercover law enforcement officer. Defendant was subsequently charged with patronizing prostitution, a misdemeanor. Defendant filed a motion to suppress his text conversation with "Lily" and for dismissal of the case due to a lack of evidence. The district court denied the motions, and Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the warrantless use of a cloaked law enforcement officer under a fake internet advertisement for sexual services and the responsive text message conversation did not intrude upon an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore did not effect a constitutional search in violation of Defendant's right to privacy under Mont. Const. art. II, 10-11. View "State v. Staker" on Justia Law

In this original proceeding, the Supreme Court granted the petition for writ and assumed original jurisdiction over Petitioners' constitutional challenge and then held that Senate Bill 140 (SB 140 does not violate Mont. Const. art. VII, 8(2).SB 140 was passed by the 2021 Montana Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. The bill abolished Montana's Judicial Nomination Commission and the previous process to screen applicants for vacancies on the Supreme Court and the District Courts. Petitioners brought this proceeding challenging the constitutionality of SB 140. The Supreme Court held (1) Petitioners had standing to challenge the constitutionality of SB 140; (2) urgent or emergency factors justified an original proceeding in this Court; and (3) SB 140 does not violate Article VII, Section 8(2). View "Brown v. Gianforte" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of the sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl and upheld the constitutionality of his sentence requiring lifetime GPS monitoring, holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred to the extent it admitted the victim's taped forensic interview as a prior consistent statement, but there was not a reasonable possibility that the forensic interview contributed to Defendant's conviction; (2) Defendant did not sustain his burden to demonstrate that the prosecutor's closing arguments justified reversal of his conviction for plain error; and (3) the requirement for GPS monitoring imposed by Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(4)(b) is not facially unconstitutional under either the Montana or the United States Constitutions. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed an order issued by the district court denying a motion for substitution of judge that was made after the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment order of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the district court erred in denying the motion for substitution for judge.This matter arose from condemnation proceedings concerning the water supply system serving the Missoula urban area. Mountain Water Company and Carlyle Infrastructure Partners, LP (collectively, Owners) filed a notice of constitutional question and motion for partial summary judgment, contending that Mont. Code Ann. 70-30-306(2) and (3) were unconstitutional. The district court determined that section 70-30-306 was constitutional facially and as-applied. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for limited discovery. On remand, Owners filed a motion for substitution of district judge. The district court denied the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Owners were denied their right of substitution upon this Court's reversal of the district court's summary judgment order. View "Missoula v. Mountain Water Co." on Justia Law