Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of sexual assault, a felony, and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument regarding the truthfulness of witness testimony did not rise to the level of plain error; and (2) the district court did not deny abuse its discretion when it determined that a new trial was not warranted in the interest of justice after the court sua sponte questioned a key defense witness, as the inquiry did not serve to deny Defendant a fair trial. View "State v. Walton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of accountability to burglary and theft. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence for accountability to burglary and reversed Defendant’s conviction for theft, holding (1) the district court did not err by instructing the jury on the theory of accountability when the State had not directly charged an accountability based offense, as the circumstances surrounding the trial put Defendant on notice that the State would pursue an accountability theory; (2) defense counsel’s submission of a jury instruction defining “purposely” in Montana’s accountability statute as a conduct-based rather than result-based mental state resulted in no prejudice to Defendant’s position at trial; and (3) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to Defendant’s theft conviction on the grounds that it violated Montana’s statutory restriction on multiple charges. View "State v. Tellegen" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of felony assault with a weapon. The district court sentenced Defendant to a ten-year term commitment to the Department of Corrections (DOC) with five years suspended. After Defendant’s probation officer filed a report of violation, a petition for revocation was filed in district court. Following a hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to a five-year commitment to DOC with recommended placement at a prerelease facility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition for revocation; and (2) the district court did not violate Defendant’s due process rights by considering the criminal history information in the presentencing investigation report, nor did it abuse its discretion by requiring Defendant to serve the remainder of his original sentence. View "State v. Edmundson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to felony theft pursuant to a plea agreement. Although both parties recommended that the district court follow the plea agreement in sentencing Defendant, the district court rejected the plea agreement and sentenced Defendant to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for ten years, with five years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court committed plain error and violated his due process rights by rejecting the plea agreement and failing to afford him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it rejected the plea agreement’s sentencing recommendation without giving Defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea; and (2) Defendant’s trial attorney did not provide ineffective assistance. View "State v. Olson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this action to challenge a decision by county commissioners (the Commissioners) to permit elected county officials to receive cash payments in lieu of county contributions on their behalf to a group health insurance program. Plaintiff claimed the Commissioners violated Montana’s open meetings statute and his constitutional right of participation, requested a declaration that the “cash in lieu” policy was unlawful, and filed a writ for mandamus that the county attorney commence an action to recover any illegal payments. The district court (1) dismissed Plaintiff’s right to know and right of participation claims as time barred; (2) dismissed Plaintiff’s declaratory claim for lack of standing; and (3) dismissed the mandamus claim, determining that mandamus did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff had standing to pursue his right to know and right of participation claims; and (2) Plaintiff’s right to know and right of participation claims were time barred, but Plaintiff’s allegations qualified for application of equitable tolling principles. Remanded. View "Schoof v. Nesbit" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to forgery and issuing bad checks and received a deferred sentence. Defendant subsequently violated the conditions of his supervision. The district court imposed two consecutive commitments to the Department of Corrections, with all time suspended. The district court subsequently found that Defendant violated the terms of his probation and revoked Defendant’s suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) neither the relevant statutes nor due process require the State to produce independent evidence corroborating an offender’s admission of a violation of the conditions of his or her supervision; and (2) the district court did not violate Defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses during the revocation hearing. View "State v. Macker" on Justia Law

In 2004, Petitioner was hired as a production supervisor for Holcim Inc.’s cement manufacturing plant. In 2008, Petitioner was diagnosed with angina. After Petitioner left Holcim, Petitioner filed a claim under the Montana Human Rights Acts for discrimination. The Montana Department of Labor and Industry dismissed Petitioner’s complaint, concluding that Holcim did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of disability. The Montana Human Rights Commission upheld the dismissal, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the hearing officer’s determination that Petitioner did not prove that he belonged to a protected class, as Petitioner failed to establish that he was disabled within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. View "Estate of Welch v. Holcim, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded no contest to arson, a felony. Appellant later moved to withdraw his no contest plea. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Appellant entered a knowing and voluntary plea and could not demonstrate that the offer of proof was insufficient or that his representation was ineffective. The district court's judgment was affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently petitioned for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that the district court misinterpreted the arson statute. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in its interpretation of the arson statute; and (2) Appellant was unable to prove that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Ellison v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of vehicular homicide while under the influence, failure to stop immediately at the scene of an accident involving an injured person, and driving without a valid driver's license. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by limiting Defendant's cross-examination of the State's informant; (2) the district court erred when it prevented Defendant's expert forensic pathologist from testifying about matters not disclosed through discovery, but the error was harmless; and (3) the district court's decision to permit an undisclosed expert witness to testify for the State did not constitute reversible error. View "State v. Garding" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly denied Defendant's motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct; (2) made an adequate inquiry into Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and took adequate precautions to ensure that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel; (3) correctly employed a balancing test to conclude that Defendant was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial; (4) did not err by admitting evidence of Defendant's prior assault of his wife to rebut Defendant's character evidence; (5) did not plainly err in instructing the jury on mitigated deliberate homicide; and (5) did not improperly impose parole conditions. View "State v. MacGregor" on Justia Law