Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

LR-123 was enacted by the Montana Legislature in 2011. It proposed a vote in the November 2012 general election on whether to provide a tax credit and potential tax refund, or outright State payment, to individuals in years in which there is a certain level of projected surplus revenue. Plaintiffs filed a complaint contending LR-123 was unconstitutional because it unlawfully delegated legislative powers. The constitutional issue in this case turned upon whether LR-123 impermissibly delegated legislative power to an employee (the legislative fiscal analyst) of one of the Legislature's committees. The district court found that LR-123 unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the legislative fiscal analyst. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that LR-123 was unconstitutional on its face and therefore may not appear on the ballot in November 2012. View "MEA-MFT v. McCulloch" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony partner or family member assault. The district court designated Defendant a persistent felony offender and committed him to the department of corrections (DOC) for the statutory minimum period of five years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that the complaining witness had a history of a felony forgery charge over a decade before Defendant's trial based on the remoteness in time of the forgery charge and the substantial evidence in the record to support the assault against the witness; and (2) the district court lawfully based its sentence upon Defendant's likelihood of reoffending and the court's desire to rehabilitate him. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The State appealed an order that preliminarily enjoined parts of the Montana Marijuana Act. Montana Cannabis Industry Association, Mark Matthews, Shirley Hamp, Shelly Yeager, Jane Doe, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Michael Geci-Black, John Stowers, Point Hatfield, and Charlie Hamp (collectively, Plaintiffs) cross-appealed. The 2004 Medical Marijuana Act left in place those provisions in the Montana criminal code that make it illegal to cultivate, possess, distribute or use marijuana, while simultaneously protecting authorized users of medical marijuana from being prosecuted. The Legislature enacted Senate Bill 423, which repealed the 2004 Medical Marijuana Act and replaced it with the Montana Marijuana Act (MMA), which dramatically changed the landscape for the cultivation, distribution, and use of marijuana for medical purposes. In 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to both temporarily and permanently enjoin the implementation of the MMA in its entirety. Based on a motion filed with the complaint, the District Court immediately entered a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the MMA which prohibited the advertising of "marijuana or marijuana-related products" and which was scheduled to take effect that day. By stipulation, the temporary restraining order remained in effect pending the preliminary injunction hearing. The court ultimately issued its Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The issues raised on appeal to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether the District Court erred when it applied a strict scrutiny, fundamental rights analysis to preliminarily enjoin the MMA; (2) whether the District Court erred in not enjoining section 50-46-308(2), MCA; (3) whether the District Court erred in not enjoining section 50-46-308(7), MCA; and, (4) whether the court erred in declining to enjoin the MMA in its entirety. The Supreme Court concluded after review: (1) the MMA did not implicate the fundamental right to employment, and reversed the District Court’s holding on this issue; and in pursuing health, an individual does not have a fundamental affirmative right of access to a particular drug. The Court reversed the District Court's holding with respect to this issue. Because the Court remanded the case on the scrutiny issue, it declined to address Issues Two, Three and Four. View "Montana Cannabis v. Montana" on Justia Law

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