Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving without liability insurance, habitual traffic offender operating motor vehicle, and refusal to submit to breath or blood alcohol and/or drug test. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence that was obtained from the stop of his vehicle for lack of particularized suspicion. The municipal court denied the motion. Defendant entered into a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s factual findings regarding the existence of particularized suspicion were not clearly erroneous. View "City of Missoula v. Sharp" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with partner or family member assault, second offense. The State filed notice that the Crime Victims Compensation Program sought restitution from Defendant for the amount the Program paid to the victim’s counselor as a result of treatment required by Defendant’s conduct. Defendant pleaded guilty to negligent endangerment and requested a hearing on the amount of the restitution. After a hearing, the municipal court found that a preponderance of the evidence supported the amount of restitution sought and ordered Defendant to make restitution to the Program for the counseling costs. The district court affirmed the restitution order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the municipal court erred in denying Defendant’s request to examine the mental health treatment form that supported the State’s restitution request, because, to the extent the form did not contain the victim’s private information, Defendant was entitled to view the form as a matter of procedural due process. View "State v. McClelland" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the deliberate homicide of his ex-wife. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements made while in police custody, because even if the police questioned Defendant in violation of his right to counsel and right to remain silent there was no reasonable probability that admission of the interview contributed to Defendant’s conviction; and (2) because there was no reasonable possibility the results of Defendant’s trial would have been different had the interview been held inadmissible, Defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel when counsel failed to present the video recording of the police interview at the suppression hearing must fail. View "State v. Larson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of assault on a peace officer. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, alleging improper contact between the judge and the jury while the jury was deliberating. Specifically, Defendant argued that the judge committed reversible error by asking the jury about the status of its deliberations outside of the presence of Defendant and the public. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the violation of Defendant’s right to presence was not reversible error; and (2) the closure did not impair the fairness of Defendant’s trial. View "State v. Northcutt" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving her right to appeal the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress. Defendant appealed, arguing that her motion to suppress should have been granted because she was illegally seized when she admitted she had contraband in her purse and consented to a search and, thus, that her admission and consent must be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal seizure. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant and reversed, holding that no objective facts justified the seizure of Defendant, and therefore, the seizure was illegal and all evidence obtained as a result of it must be suppressed. Remanded. View "State v. Emerson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of deliberate homicide and sentenced to forty years in prison. Defendant later filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he had discovered new evidence warranting a new trial. The district court denied Defendant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court failed adequately to address Defendant’s newly discovered evidence claim, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the district court erred by determining, on this record, that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because the court misapprehended the law and misapprehended the effect of Defendant’s evidence. View "Wilkes v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged in municipal court with misdemeanor cruelty to animals. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty. The district court affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erred when it affirmed the municipal court decision allowing a witness to testify via Skype. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation was not violated under the circumstances of this case by the district court’s decision to allow the Skype testimony; and (2) the district court erred in concluding that Mont. R. Evid. 611(e) was “generally applicable to civil actions and not criminal cases,” but the error was harmless. View "City of Missoula v. Duane" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI) per se, fourth-offense, a felony. Before sentencing, Defendant moved to dismiss the felony DUI charge or, alternatively, to amend the charge to a misdemeanor, alleging in her supporting affidavit that her 2003 DUI conviction was constitutionally inform because she was not told that she had a right to an attorney, and therefore, the 2003 DUI could not be used to enhance her current DUI charge to a felony. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant could not submit an affidavit without being subject to cross-examination as to the affidavit’s contents, and therefore, Defendant suffered no prejudice from the district court compelling her to testify. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Legislature enacted the Montana 24/7 Sobriety Program Act, which permits a court, as a condition of pretrial release of an individual accused of a drunk driving offense, to require the individual to submit to twice-daily alcohol breath tests. The justice court in this case ordered Defendant to participate in the 24/7 Sobriety Program as a condition of his release on bond. Defendant missed three tests while enrolled in the program and was charged with criminal contempt for the missed tests. Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to the contempt charges. Defendant appealed to the district court and moved to dismiss the contempt charges. The district court granted the motion and concluded that the 24/7 Program was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the breath tests required by the 24/7 Sobriety Program constitute a search, but the search does not violate proscriptions against unreasonable searches; and (2) court-ordered enrollment in the 24/7 Program does not impose pretrial punishment or violate provisions against excessive bail, but the court is required to condition pretrial release on participation in the program only after conducting an individualized assessment to determine if each defendant is an appropriate candidate for the program. Remanded. View "State v. Spady" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault with a weapon and partner or family member assault. During the trial, the prosecution sought to admit portions of a transcript from a civil order of protection hearing at which Defendant’s ex-wife testified to violence by Defendant. The district court found that the ex-wife’s statements satisfied the requirements of Mont. R. Evid. 804(b)(1)(B) and admitted the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s confrontation rights were violated when prior testimony from the civil order of protection hearing was read at his criminal trial and that the admission of the testimony of Defendant’s ex-wife was not harmless. View "State v. Pingree" on Justia Law