Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony DUI. The trial was held after several delays. Defendant was sentenced as a persistent felony offender to twenty years imprisonment with ten years suspended and ordered to pay restitution. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss based on an alleged violation of his speedy trial rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) provided sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable appellate review of Defendant's speedy trial arguments; and (2) did not err in concluding that Defendant's speedy trial rights had not been violated under the circumstances. View "State v. Stops" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1984, Defendant was convicted of deliberate homicide and sentenced to 100 years imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In 2008, Defendant filed a second petition for postconviction relief, alleging that newly discovered evidence proved his actual innocence. The district court held a three-day hearing and took testimony from witnesses that suggested a group of teenage girls had killed the victim. The district court subsequently concluded that Defendant had presented sufficient evidence of his "actual innocence" to warrant a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed Defendant's petition for postconviction relief, holding that the district court erred by concluding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial, as, applying the proper standard of review to the new evidence offered by Defendant, Defendant failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating either a freestanding claim or a gateway claim of "actual innocence." View "State v. Beach" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of an open alcoholic beverage container in a motor vehicle, failure to drive on the right side of a roadway, and driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court subsequently granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the district court (1) incorrectly concluded that, because the arresting officer did not follow Mont. Code Ann. 46-6-312, all evidence gathered after Defendant's arrest should be suppressed because the arrest was lawful; (2) incorrectly concluded that the arresting officer's failure to advise Defendant of her Miranda rights at the time of arrest required suppression of all evidence obtained after her arrest with the exception of two self-incriminating statements Defendant made in response to the officer's questions after he placed her in the patrol vehicle; and (3) incorrectly concluded that evidence seized from Defendant's vehicle must be suppressed, as the plain view doctrine permitted seizure of the evidence. View "State v. Kelm" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced for sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not err by admitting into evidence a recored interview with the victim in violation of Defendant's confrontation rights or in contravention of Mont. R. Evid. 613(b); (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction under the criteria set forth in State v. Yuhas; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (4) Defendant's argument that his attorney provided ineffective assistance at trial should be raised in a petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law

Defendant brought her seven-week-old son, John Doe, to a medical center for injuries. A jury later convicted Defendant of assault on a minor and aggravated assault. The district court ordered a change in parenting arrangements for John Doe as part of the criminal sentence despite pending dependency and neglect proceedings. As part of Defendant's sentence, the district court ordered Defendant to pay fees, costs, and surcharges without recording findings regarding Defendant's financial situation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant had regained custody of John Doe through the civil proceeding, her claim regarding the imposition of a condition concerning the temporary custody of John Doe was moot; however, the statement in the court's written judgment that the father should be presumed to have custody of John Doe should not have been included in the criminal sentence; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in imposing fees. View "State v. MacDonald" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, criminal endangerment, and assault on a peace officer, all felonies. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the Supreme Court should exercise plain error review of his argument that the convictions for aggravated assault and criminal endangerment violated statutory and constitutional double jeopardy protections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the aggravated assault conviction; (2) sufficient evidence supported the burglary conviction; and (3) charging both crimes of criminal endangerment and aggravated assault was not plain error under the facts of this case since different victims were involved. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault on a peace officer, a felony, for biting a detention officer on the arm. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor's comments during closing argument constituted misconduct and warranted reversal of her conviction under plain error review. Defendant argued that the prosecutor repeatedly made direct comments about the reliability of the witnesses, and thus the prosecutor vouched for the witnesses and attempted to interject his personal opinion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when viewed in the context of the entire argument, the challenged comments made in closing argument did not raise the specter of prosecutorial misconduct necessitating the exercise of plain error review to protect fundamental fairness of this proceeding. View "State v. McDonald" on Justia Law

After Employee failed to ask a shopper for a loyalty card per Employer's policy, Employee was fired. Employee brought a wrongful discharge claim against Employer under Montana's Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA). Employee accepted Employer's offer to arbitrate the dispute because she said Mont. Code Ann. 39-915 would force her to pay Employer's attorney fees if she declined the offer and later lost at trial. Employee then successfully moved to amend her complaint to add destruction of evidence and declaratory judgment claims, alleging, inter alia, that section 39-2-915 was unconstitutional. The district court subsequently dismissed Employee's amended complaint, concluding that it had lost jurisdiction over Employee's claim once she accepted the offer to arbitrate. The court also ruled that 39-2-915 was constitutional. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the dismissal of Employee's amended complaint, as the court lost its ability to consider Employee's claim once she agreed to arbitration; and (2) set aside the district court's determination of Employee's constitutional claim, as the court lost its authority to act further once Employee agreed to arbitrate. View "Ensey v. Mini Mart, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to the aggravated assault of his wife (Wife). As part of his sentence, the district court ordered Defendant to pay $44,112 in restitution, including $19,866 for Wife's medical expenses arising from her suicide attempt two and a half months after Defendant's assault. Defendant appealed the portion of his sentence involving the restitution for Wife's suicide attempt. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order of restitution, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that Wife's suicide attempt was "a result of" Defendant's criminal conduct; and (2) substantial evidence in the record supported the restitution obligation. View "State v. Jent" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of negligent homicide and criminal endangerment. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion in limine requesting that five photos of the victim's body be excluded from evidence at trial. Defendant argued that the photos were highly prejudicial in that they depicted death, and the photos had no probative value. The district court granted Defendant's request as to one photo but allowed the State to use the remaining photos. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it admitted the photos of the victim into evidence where the court correctly balanced the probative value of the photos against their prejudicial effect. View "State v. Buslayev" on Justia Law