Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Caryn Lewis asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of supervisory control over the Eighth Judicial District Court in Cascade County Cause No. ADV 10-895. The District Court action arose from a 2003 motor vehicle/pedestrian accident in which Lewis was the pedestrian. The vehicle that struck Lewis left the scene, and neither the vehicle nor the driver was ever located. Lewis’s complaint stated she suffered serious bodily injuries from the accident, and her medical reports showed that those injuries included a cause for a Rule 35 examination. The Court never ruled that a plaintiff's claim for general emotional distress damages is, in and of itself, a sufficient basis for ordering a Rule 35 mental examination. Lewis did not claim damages for any mental or psychological disorder or injury due to the accident, nor did she claim that a pre-existing mental condition was exacerbated by the accident or assert an independent tort claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Rather, she made only a general claim for "emotional pain, suffering and anxiety" associated with her physical injuries from the accident. Upon review, the Court concluded that the matter involved a legal issue as to which the District Court made a mistake of law. Because Lewis did not put her mental condition in controversy, the District Court erred in granting State Farm's (her insurer) motion for an independent psychological examination of her under M. R. Civ. P. 35. "And, because Lewis's loss of privacy in submitting to a Rule 35 psychological examination would be irretrievable, the normal appeal process would be inadequate to address the District Court's error." The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Lewis v. 8th Judicial District" on Justia Law

Appellant Raul Sanchez appealed a district court order that denied his amended petition for postconviction relief. The issue on appeal was whether the court erred in doing so. Appellant admitted to shooting his girlfriend Alesha in 2004. He objected to the admission of a hearsay statement Alesha made in a handwritten note she addressed "to whom it may concern" and suggested that should tragedy befall her, that she suspected it was at the hands of Appellant. Appellant raised his objection as a violation of the Confrontation Clause. The Montana Supreme Court concluded that while the note constituted hearsay not subject to an exception, its admission was harmless error because the State presented other admissible evidence that proved the same facts. Furthermore. the Court concluded that Appellant forfeited his constitutional right to confront Alesha when he killed her. Appellant filed his application for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to appeal the Montana Supreme Court's confrontation decision to the United States Supreme Court. The district court denied Appellant's application for relief. Finding "overwhelming" evidence to support Appellant's conviction and that there was no error by his counsel for "failing" to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of relief. View "Sanchez v. Montana" on Justia Law

Chris Otto appealed a district court's order that denied his motion to dismiss his felony driving under the influence (DUI) charge. The issue on appeal was whether the district court correctly determined that Otto's three prior DUI-related convictions supported the enhancement of his most recent DUI to a felony. Upon review, the Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, and affirmed the district court's decision. View "Montana v. Otto" on Justia Law

Darla Edward appealed a district court order that ordered her to pay restitution following a collision between her car and a bicyclist, and the ensuing court trial and sentencing. She raised four issues on appeal: (1) she contended the district court erred when he held that the jury should have determined causation; (2) the evidence in the record did not support the amount of restitution she was ordered to pay; (3) her rights constitutional rights to a jury and a fair trial were violated; (4) she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no error with the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court in all respects. View "City of Billings v. Edward" on Justia Law

Ralph Jentile appealed a district court decision that ordered him to pay for the repairs to two Whitefish Police Department patrol cars that collided with each other while pursuing Jentile. Jentile raised two issues on appeal: (1) whether the amount of restitution Jentile was ordered to pay should be reduced because of the alleged comparative negligence of the officer involved in the accident; and (2) whether Jentile's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to specifically argue that the amount of restitution should have been reduced because of the comparative negligence of the officer involved in the accident. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, agreeing that the district court should have taken the officer's negligence into consideration when arriving at the restitution amount. View "City of Whitefish v. Jentile" on Justia Law

Birth mother N.S. (Mother) and birth father K.R. (Father) appealed a district court order that terminated their parental rights to their four-year-old twin daughters, T.R. 1 and T.R. 2. Mother also appealed the District Court’s order denying her a new trial. The issues on appeal were: (1) whether the District Court abused its discretion by terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights; (2) whether the District Court erred in finding it was in the children’s best interests to terminate those rights; (3) whether the District Court erred in finding the Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; (4) whether the District Court adequately addressed the appropriateness of the treatment plans in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Furthermore, Mother asserted that the District Court abused its discretion by denying her a new trial based on new evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court found substantial evidence in the record to support the District Court’s findings that the conditions rendering Mother and Father unfit were unlikely to change within a reasonable time, and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the parental rights. "It [was] manifest on the face of the briefs and the record that there was not an abuse of discretion." View "Matter of T.R.1 and T.R.2" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Daniel John Paulsrud of deliberate homicide with a dangerous weapon in 2011. The district court sentenced Paulsrud to 110 years in the Montana State Prison without the possibility of parole. Paulsrud challenged the parole restriction, requesting that his sentence be vacated. The issues on appeal before the Supreme Court were: (1) did the District Court impose an illegal sentence by restricting the Defendant's eligibility for parole?; and, (2) does a life sentence without parole based on the nature of the crime constitute cruel and unusual punishment? The Court answered both questions in the negative and affirmed the district court. View "Montana v. Paulsrud" on Justia Law

Gordon Sees The Ground, Jr. appealed a district court's order that denied his petition for postconviction relief. In 2008, Sees The Ground was convicted of felony DUI after Billings police officers found him slumped over the steering wheel of a car with the ignition key in the on position, the headlights on, and parked partially in the traffic lane. Sees The Ground appealed the conviction and the Supreme Court affirmed. Sees The Ground was subsequently charged with and convicted of perjury based upon the testimony he gave at his DUI trial. Sees The Ground testified at the DUI trial that Orrie Plainbull had driven the car to the location where Sees The Ground was later found behind the wheel. Sees The Ground appealed the perjury conviction but the appeal was withdrawn. Sees The Ground claimed in his postconviction relief petition that the prosecution in his DUI trial withheld material information about a witness who called 911 to report Sees The Ground slumped over in the vehicle. Sees The Ground claims that the prosecution withheld information that Wood also witnessed two men in a car and saw the passenger get out, fall on the sidewalk, and injure himself while the vehicle drove away. The injured man proved to be Orrie Plainbull (the person Sees the Ground claimed was driving which was the basis of his perjured testimony) and the vehicle that drove away was the one in which police later found Sees The Ground slumped over the steering wheel. Having reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal the Court concluded that Sees The Ground did not meet his burden of persuasion and that the District Court properly denied relief. View "Sees the Ground v. Montana" on Justia Law

Candice Brilz filed an action in Montana state court purportedly asserting statutory and common law bad-faith claims against Metropolitan General Insurance Company (Metropolitan). Metropolitan removed the action to federal court and filed a motion for summary judgment, which the federal court granted. Thereafter, Brilz commenced this suit district court seeking a determination that she may pursue her common law bad-faith claim against Metropolitan. Because the statute of limitations on that claim had since expired, Brilz requested a ruling that she may pursue the claim pursuant to 27-2-407, MCA, or the Supreme Court's doctrine of equitable tolling. The District Court dismissed the action, and Brilz appealed. The Supreme Court concluded that principles of claim preclusion barred her from filing a second action against Metropolitan arising out of the same underlying facts. Accordingly the Court affirmed the District Court's judgment. View "Brilz v. Metropolitan General Ins." on Justia Law

Faith Malpeli brought an inverse condemnation action against the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), seeking compensation for the alleged taking of her property as a result of the reconstruction of Montana Highway 191 near Big Sky during a highway safety improvement project. A jury found that MDT had not taken a property right belonging to Malpeli, and therefore did not reach the question of compensation. Malpeli appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by: (1) denying Malpeli's motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial; (2) excluding Malpeli's appraiser from testifying; and (3) allowing MDT to disclose to the jury an offer of compromise it had made to Malpeli before this action was filed. MDT cross-appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by denying its motion for partial summary judgment before trial. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court determined that the motion for summary judgment should have been granted, and therefore affirmed the judgment in favor of MDT. View "Malpeli v. Montana" on Justia Law