Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A police officer stopped Defendant’s car after recognizing him as a person who had a suspended driver’s license. The officer placed Defendant under arrest and conducted a pat-down search leading to the discovery of a prescription medication bottle in the cuff of Defendant’s leg. Defendant later pleaded guilty to felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the contents of the prescription bottle seized at the time of his arrest, arguing that the opening of the pill bottle was an illegal search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the pill bottle because he claimed no ownership of the bottle or its contents, and therefore, there was no search in the constitutional sense. View "State v. McKeever" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of felony sexual assault. This appeal concerned Defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and dismiss the charges. In his motion Defendant claimed that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the charges were not brought by a grand jury process and that Montana law did not allow a court to obtain jurisdiction over a felony without this process. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under Montana’s Constitution and state law. View "Montgomery v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts of attempted deliberate homicide. Before trial, Defendant moved to suppress statements he made while in custody, arguing that he was never informed of his right to remain silent and that all questioning by law enforcement should have ceased when he asked for an attorney. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant was subsequently convicted on both counts of attempted homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it (1) denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the statements he made after he was in custody, after he requested an attorney, and before he was notified of his Miranda rights were spontaneous; and (2) denied Defendant’s motion to exclude one of the victims of the crime from the courtroom. View "State v. Braulick" on Justia Law

M.K.S., who had a long history of treatment for schizophrenia and other mental health illnesses, was regularly subject to community commitments and hospitalizations. In 2013, M.K.S. stipulated to a six-month community commitment. Before the commitment was set to expire, the State filed a renewed petition for commitment. After a commitment hearing, the district court found that M.K.S. posed a danger to herself based on her recent suicidal threats and that a commitment to the Montana State Hospital was necessary to guarantee her safety. The Supreme Court affirmed based on the plain error doctrine, holding that because of a professional person’s failure to file a statutorily-required written report in M.K.S.’s civil commitment proceeding, M.K.S.’s right of due process was implicated in the proceedings. However, M.K.S. failed to demonstrate that the absence of a written report substantially impacted this right in a manner that would leave unsettled the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, compromise the integrity of the judicial process, or create a manifest miscarriage of justice. View "In re M.K.S." on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of deliberate homicide. After the matter had been set for sentencing, Appellant sought the appointment of new counsel and also filed a motion for withdrawal of his guilty plea. The district court denied Appellant’s request for the appointment of new counsel and further denied his motion to withdraw his plea. The court then sentenced Appellant to life in prison. The Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings on a limited issue, holding that the district court failed to adequately inquire into Appellant’s complaint that defense counsel had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Schowengerdt" on Justia Law

After receiving treatment from St. Peter’s Hospital, Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Hospital violated Montana anti-trust laws and the Montana Constitution by discriminating against her based on her lack of health insurance. After concluding that Plaintiff had standing, the district court awarded summary judgment to the Hospital, determining that uninsured persons are not a protected class under the Montana Constitution. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s standing determination; but (2) reversed the court’s entry of summary judgment on the merits, holding that the determinations that the district court made in its summary judgment order did not resolve all of Plaintiff’s claims. Remanded. View "Gazelka v. St. Peter’s Hosp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1984, Defendant was convicted of deliberate homicide for a crime committed when Defendant was seventeen. The district court imposed the maximum sentence of one hundred years’ imprisonment without the possibility of parole, a sentence that was within the discretion of the district court and that was not mandated by law. Defendant attempted in numerous filings to attack his conviction and sentence, to no avail. Defendant now petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the constitutionality of his sentence under Miller v. Alabama. The Supreme Court denied the habeas petition, holding that the Miller sentencing consideration rule requiring a sentencing judge to consider a juvenile offender’s age when sentencing that offender to life without parole is not retroactive to Defendant’s claim on collateral review. View "Beach v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-102. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the search of her purse by police officers, arguing that the tip the officers received failed to establish particularized suspicion and that her consent to search was involuntary, and therefore, the seizure and search were illegal. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err by concluding that the search of Defendant’s baggage was lawfully executed based upon Defendant’s voluntary consent; and (2) erred in its written judgment by altering Defendant’s sentence from its oral pronouncement. View "State v. Dupree" on Justia Law

Missoula County Sheriff’s Department (MCSD) deputies accompanied Christine Robutka to a rural property to assist with a civil standby while Robutka removed her belongings from the property. Robutka had been sharing a residence on the property with two men, including Defendant. While assisting with the civil standby, the deputies observed marijuana plants at the property. Robutka subsequently told detectives that Defendant was growing marijuana at the property. Thereafter, MCSD deputies obtained a warrant to search the property and executed the search, which resulted in the seizure of multiple adult marijuana plants. Defendant was charged with cultivating marijuana. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence gathered from the civil standby on the search. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant eventually pleaded guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and his resulting conviction, holding that the deputies did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights when they entered the driveway to conduct the civil standby, and the plain view observation of marijuana plants by MCSD deputies provided probable cause for the search warrant. View "State v. Urziceanu" on Justia Law

In 2012, M.C. was born to Mother and Father, who were unmarried. After Mother told Father that she intended to live in Ohio with M.C., Father petitioned the district court for establishment of a parenting plan, proposing that he should become M.C.’s primary caregiver. Mother proposed a parenting plan that would allow her to reside in Ohio as M.C.’s primary caregiver. After a hearing, the district court concluded that if Mother chose to live in Montana, the parties would be directed to submit parenting plans naming Mother as M.C.’s primary caregiver, and that if Mother chose to live in Ohio, the parties would be directed to submit proposed parenting plans naming Father as M.C.’s primary caregiver. The Supreme Court affirmed the parenting plan, holding that the district court did not violate Mother’s fundamental right to travel by ordering that M.C. should reside in Montana. View "In re Parenting of M.C." on Justia Law