Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The municipal court found Defendant guilty of disorderly conduct after Defendant and her daughter directed profane ad abusive language toward a thirteen-year-old boy from their vehicle on a public street. The district court affirmed Defendant’s conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, among other things, that (1) the disorderly conduct statute does not require proof that the peace of more than one person was disturbed; (2) Defendant’s speech constituted “fighting words” and was not constitutionally protected; (3) Defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by the responding officer’s initial report of his investigation; and (4) the municipal court did not err by considering the victim’s age during sentencing. View "City of Billings v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed a combined petition challenging the legal sufficiency of Initiative No. 171 (I-171), a proposed ballot measure that would prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from using funds, resources, or personnel to administer or enforce the federal Affordable Care Act, among other things. Petitioners sought an order enjoining the Secretary of State from approving petitions for circulation to the electorate for signatures or otherwise submitting the measure for approval by the voters and further sought a declaration that I-171 was unconstitutional and void. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) the Attorney General correctly determined that I-171 was legally sufficient; and (2) the ballot statements for I-171 satisfy the requirements of law. View "Hoffman v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony burglary in 2007. The Flathead County District Court issued a warrant for Defendant’s arrest, but shortly afterward, Defendant was arrested and sentenced on unrelated federal charges. Defendant was subsequently committed to a federal correctional institution. In 2013, Defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss the Flathead County arrest warrant, arguing that the county attorney’s failure to take action on his pending burglary charge violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The county attorney argued in response that Defendant’s motion must be denied because an inmate may invoke the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) only after a detainer is filed. The District Court denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant’s motion was premised on an alleged denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, not the IAD; and (2) the district court improperly denied Defendant’s motion without addressing his speedy trial rights. Remanded. View "State v. Nickerson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, registered voters seeking to invalidate the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission’s (Commission) assignment of two “holdover senators” in its final 2013 redistricting plan, filed a complaint against the State and Secretary of State (collectively, "State") seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The district court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that (1) the Commission did not violate the public’s “right to know”; (2) the Commission is part of the legislative branch and is not an agency, and that it is therefore exempt from statutes promulgating the right of participation; and (3) Plaintiffs’ argument that the Commission violated Plaintiffs’ right of suffrage was without merit. View "Willems v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested after law enforcement officers responded to a report that Defendant had stolen a purse and, after conducting a warrant check, learned that Defendant had an outstanding city warrant. At the detention center, officers conducted an inventory search of Defendant’s purse and found drugs and drug paraphernalia. The State charged Defendant with criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress or dismiss, which the district court denied. Defendant pleaded guilty to both counts. Defendant subsequently appealed the denial of her motion to suppress and dismiss, asking the Supreme Court to overturn State v. Pastos, in which the Court held that a compelling state interest justifies a routine, administrative inventory search of the personal property in the possession of the arrestee at the station house following a lawful arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion and, in so doing, reaffirmed its decision in Pastos, holding (1) safety concerns and procedural safeguards justify the inventory searches at issue; and (2) the search of Defendant’s purse was a valid inventory search under Pastos. View "State v. Demontiney" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of accountability for criminal distribution of dangerous drugs and committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections for fifteen years, with ten years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by moving to preclude evidence of accountability or conspiracy, which Defendant alleged alerted the State to its “charging error," thus prompting the State to amend the charges and thereby assuring his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s argument was entirely without merit and that the efforts of Defendant’s attorney were well within the wide range of reasonable professional conduct. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and two counts of felony assault with a weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported Appellant’s convictions for felony assault with a weapon; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting a justifiable use of force defense to the felony assault with a gun charge; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to present rebuttal evidence to impeach defense witness testimony; and (4) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. View "State v. Redlich" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with aggravated assault against his wife and criminal endangerment. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal endangerment and the lesser offense of assault. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) criminal endangerment is a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault, and charging both crimes is prohibited by statute, and (2) his counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to invoke Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-225, which requires a sentencing court to evaluate specific criteria when assessing imprisonment alternatives for non-violent offenders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not simultaneously convicted on a lesser and greater offense; and (2) Defendant suffered no prejudice from his counsel’s conduct at sentencing. View "Zink v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony theft by insurance fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that an insurance administrator is a person who adjusts or settles claims; (2) the Court declines to exercise plain error review of the State’s remarks during closing argument; (3) the district court did not err by ordering Defendant to pay restitution when the affidavit of loss was prepared by an independent adjuster; and (4) Defendant’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised in a postconviction proceeding before a district court, where an evidentiary record may be developed. View "State v. Schaeffer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony incest involving his fourteen-year-old son and six-year-old daughter and of tampering with the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later petition for postconviction relief, setting forth three grounds upon which he claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief, concluding that even if Defendant’s representation was deficient, it would not have created a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been any different. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that even if counsel’s conduct was constitutionally deficient, Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced. View "Stock v. Montana" on Justia Law