Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence, second offense. Defendant appealed, demanding a trial de novo. Defendant also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated by his trial being conducted by a non-lawyer judge in a court of record without trial de novo. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s trial before a non-lawyer justice of the peace, even where a trial de novo was not available on appeal, did not violate his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel or to due process. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff’s employment with Butte-Silver Bow County was terminated, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the County alleging several counts. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on most of Plaintiff’s claims. The court, however, denied summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s claim that the County violated Mont. Code Ann. 39-2-904(1)(b), holding that factual questions remained as to whether the County had good cause for Plaintiff’s termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting summary judgment in the County’s favor with respect to Plaintiff’s claims that the County violated Montana’s open meeting laws and public participation laws; (2) granting summary judgment in the County’s favor with respect to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim; (3) ruling that the County did not discharge Plaintiff in violation of its own policies or for refusing to violate public policy; and (4) concluding that Plaintiff was entitled to a trial on her claim that the County terminated her employment without good cause. View "Moe v. Butte-Silver Bow Co." on Justia Law

In 2012, Montana voters passed Legislative Referendum 121 (LR 121). The referendum denied certain state services to “illegal aliens.” Before the law went into effect, Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance (MIJA) filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from LR 121, arguing that the referendum violated certain constitutional rights and was preempted by federal law. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction as to the majority of LR 121 but enjoined the use of the definition of “illegal alien” so as to preclude the State from using an individual’s unlawful entry into the United States as a factor in determining that individual’s entitlement to state benefits. The district court subsequently concluded that LR 121 was preempted by federal law. The court then awarded MIJA attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in concluding that MIJA has associational standing to challenge LR 121; (2) did not err in concluding that LR 121 is preempted by federal law; and (3) erred in awarding “supplemental relief” to MIJA in the form of attorney fees. View "Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance v. Bullock" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of criminal possession. The district court sentenced him as a persistent felony offender to a term of twenty years, with ten of those years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of methamphetamine that law enforcement officers found on Defendant’s person after conducting a search incident to his lawful arrest for violating the terms of his parole; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law following the evidence hearing relating to his suppression motion; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s third discovery request; (4) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s post trial motion to dismiss based upon the Court’s failure to arraign him on the second amended information; and (5) the district court conducted an “adequate initial inquiry” into Defendant’s complaints concerning his assigned counsel. View "State v. Crawford" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of deliberate homicide and related felonies and misdemeanors. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the deliberate homicide conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) because there was no ineffective assistance of counsel on Appellant’s individual claims, there can be no cumulative error. View "Heavygun v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and related charges. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction for aggravated assault because it was an included offense of the charge of felony murder and affirmed the remaining convictions. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting that his attorneys at trial and on appeal provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in deciding that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

The district court granted a permanent injunction against the enforcement of certain provisions of the 2011 Montana Marijuana Act. The State appealed the grant of the injunction, and Plaintiffs cross-appealed the district court’s refusal to enjoin other provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in determining that the Act’s provision requiring the Department of Public Health and Human Services to notify the Board of Medical Examiners of any physician who certifies twenty-five or more patients in a year for medical marijuana fails rational review; (2) did not err in determining that the Act’s commercial prohibitions fail rational basis review; (3) erred in applying strict scrutiny review to the Act’s provision prohibiting advertising by providers of medical marijuana; (4) did not err in determining that the Act’s provision prohibiting probationers from becoming registered cardholders for medical marijuana use withstands a facial challenge under rational basis scrutiny; and (5) did not err in determining that the Act’s provision allowing warrantless inspections of medical marijuana providers’ businesses comports with constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches. View "Mont. Cannabis Indus. Ass’n v. State" on Justia Law

After a warranted search of Defendant’s home, law enforcement officers seized sixty-seven live marijuana plants and numerous miscellaneous paraphernalia. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his residence, arguing that the application for the warrant lacked sufficient facts to establish probable cause that his home contained drugs or drug-related evidence. The district court denied Defendant’s combined motion to suppress and dismiss. Thereafter, Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession with intent to distribute dangerous drugs. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and dismiss, holding that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding there was a probability of criminal activity. View "State v. Kant" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought disclosure of a settlement agreement entered into by a Cascade County detention officer, Cascade County, and the officer’s collective bargaining unit (the Union). The only barrier to disclosure of the settlement agreement was the resistance of the Union. The district court ultimately granted Plaintiff’s motion and ordered the County to disclose the settlement agreement. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for an award of costs and attorney fees under Mont. Code Ann. 2-3-221. The request was directed solely against the Union. The district court awarded Plaintiff his costs but denied his request for attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees because the sole entity from which the fees were sought - the Union - is not a public or governmental body subject to Mont. Const. art. II, 9. View "Shockley v. Cascade County" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Defendant was sentenced to five years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss the case for lack of evidence, arguing that the arresting police officer did not have particularized suspicion to conduct a stop of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motions to suppress and to dismiss, as, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the police officer had particularized suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defendant. View "State v. Ballinger" on Justia Law