Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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