Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant's vehicle hit Brian Beaver from behind, and Beaver died from severe blunt force trauma to his head. Defendant was assigned a public defender for his criminal case. Eight days before his trial, Defendant provided the district court with a pro se motion for appointment of different counsel, claiming that appointed counsel's representation was deficient. Defendant also filed a request for a continuance so that he could retain private counsel. The court denied Defendant's request for substitution of counsel, determining that counsel was providing adequate representation. The court also denied Defendant's motion to continue, determining that Defendant had lacked diligence in seeking private counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by finding that Defendant's counsel was providing effective assistance of counsel; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant had not made a good faith, diligent effort to retain substitute counsel. View "State v. Holm" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony aggravated assault and misdemeanor unlawful restraint. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, raising twelve issues. The district court determined that Defendant's petition did not demonstrate any kind of error, cumulative or otherwise, and dismissed the petition. Defendant appealed pro se to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that any error of his pre-trial and trial counsel prejudiced his right to a fair trial. View "Rukes v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Judge Deborah Christopher (Judge), alleging that Judge violated a number of his constitutional rights. The district court granted Judge's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Judge was entitled to judicial immunity from Plaintiff's claims. The district court also determined that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel after taking judicial notice of a U.S. district court complaint filed by Plaintiff against Judge, among other defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly granted Judge judicial immunity from Plaintiff's claims; and (2) the doctrine of res judicata barred Plaintiff from relitigating his claims. View "Hartsoe v. Christopher" on Justia Law

Wife petitioned the district court for dissolution of her marriage to Husband, who was incarcerated. Husband proceeded as a self-represented litigant, and the district court allowed Husband to appear telephonically at all hearings. When the final pretrial conference was held, Husband did not appear telephonically. Unbeknownst to the district court, Husband was experiencing medical problems that required surgery and hospitalization. After Husband was released from the prison infirmary, he mailed a motion to the district court requesting a sixty-day continuance. The district court received the motion, but after Husband failed to appear at a hearing to consider the motion, the court entered a default decree and declared the parties' marriage dissolved. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under these extraordinary circumstances, the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant Husband's motion for a continuance. Remanded to allow Husband to appear at a final pretrial conference and trial. View "Eslick v. Eslick" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were a group of landowners who owned properties abutting South Avenue in the City of Missoula. This lawsuit arose out of dispute between Plaintiffs and the City concerning the width of a public right-of-way constituting South Avenue. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that the right-of-way was sixty feet wide. Because the City's recent improvements to South Avenue extended beyond this sixty-foot parameter, the district court concluded that the City had effected a taking of property and awarded Plaintiffs compensation for the taking as well as their requested costs and attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court on all but two issues, holding that the district court (1) applied an incorrect measure of compensation; and (2) erroneously barred Plaintiffs' counsel from passing on to his clients the costs and fees incurred in proving underlying litigation expenses other than attorney's fees. Remanded. View "Wohl v. City of Missoula" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a gun fight between Defendant and Michael Peters. Defendant was convicted of attempted deliberate homicide with a weapon. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial upon finding that prosecutorial comments regarding Defendant's post-Miranda silence constituted plain error. After the Court remanded the case, the district court held several pre-trial hearings and ruled on various motions. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for negligent destruction of exculpatory evidence; and (2) did not err in limiting Defendant's cross-examination of a State's witness. View "State v. Wagner" on Justia Law

A peace officer stopped a vehicle Defendant was driving due to the vehicle's excessive speed and a report of drug trafficking. During the stop, the officer had Defendant exit the vehicle so the officer could detect whether the odor of marijuana was present. A large quantity of marijuana was ultimately discovered in the vehicle. The State charged Defendant with felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Defendant unsuccessfully filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer had unlawfully extended the scope of the stop by requiring Defendant to exit the vehicle. Defendant pled guilty to the charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress, as the officer's requirement that Defendant exit the vehicle during the traffic stop did not violate Defendant's constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. View "State v. Roy" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of deliberate homicide and solicitation to tamper with physical evidence. The convictions were based on an incident in which a three-year-old died after Defendant shoved her into a wall. For the deliberate homicide conviction, the district court sentenced Defendant to one hundred years incarceration with a twenty-five year parole restriction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly concluded that assault on a minor is a forcible felony under the deliberate homicide statute; and (2) properly denied Defendant's motion in limine to exclude from evidence a portion of the police's videotaped interrogation of Defendant. View "State v. Hicks" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with violating the Privacy in Communications statute by using obscene, lewd, and profane language. The charges arose from an incident in which Defendant called an employee of the county Victim Assistance Program a "fucking cunt" over the telephone. Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge. Defendant appealed and filed a motion to dismiss in the district court. The district court denied the motion, finding (1) Defendant's utterance constituted unprotected speech in the form of "fighting words," and (2) the Privacy in Communications statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's conclusion that Defendant's speech constituted "fighting words," as the interaction was not face-to-face or in a circumstance likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace; and (2) struck the prima facie portion of the Privacy in Communications statute as unconstitutionally overbroad. Remanded to the district court to allow Defendant to withdraw his nolo contendere plea and proceed to trial. View "State v. Dugan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent and partner/family member assault. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) his due process rights were violated when a portion of the trial was not recorded during the State's case in chief and effective appellate review was now unavailable, and (2) the district court erred by admitting evidence of his prior assault on the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the record was of sufficient completeness to afford effective appellate review, Defendant's right to due process was not compromised by the failure to record a portion of the State's case in chief; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that this was an appropriate case for introduction of evidence of a previous assault on the issue of consent and that the relevance of the evidence was not outweighed by unfair prejudice. View "State v. Caswell" on Justia Law