Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual assault and incest involving his biological son, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that sexual assault is a lesser included offense of incest and that his conviction violated double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's convictions for sexual assault and incest did not violate the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution, the Montana Constitution, and Mont. Code An. 46-11-410; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's representation was deficient. View "State v. Valenzuela" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the sentencing order and judgment issued by the district court imposing a four-year suspended sentence for Defendant's convictions for criminal possession of dangerous drugs, holding that Defendant received ineffective assistance during the sentencing hearing.On appeal, Defendant argued that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney, while arguing for a deferred sentence, failed to inform the district court of his authority to impose an alternative sentence under Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-202. The Supreme Court agreed, reversed Defendant's sentence, and remanded for resentencing, holding that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentence when her counsel failed to cite the Alternative Sentencing Authority, Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-202, as authority for Defendant's eligibility for a deferred sentence. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of three counts of felony sexual intercourse without consent with a victim twelve years old or younger, holding that eliciting testimony that vouched for the victim's credibility and the prosecutor's personally commenting on the victim's reliability as a witness undermined Defendant's right to a fair trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State's questioning of its expert witnesses, whom bolstered the victim's credibility, and the prosecutor's statement during closing argument that the victim was a "reliable witness" undermined his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the convictions, holding that the testimony elicited from four witnesses vouching for the victim's credibility and the prosecutor personally commenting that the victim was a reliable witness who had no incentive to lie violated Defendant's right to a fair trial. View "State v. Byrne" on Justia Law

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