Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Casey Stuivnga and Britni Evans were injured in a single-vehicle accident. The vehicle was owned by Stuivenga. Both Stuivenga and Evans claimed the other person was driving and was liable to the other for their injuries. They both sought proceeds available under an automobile insurance policy issued to Stuivenga by Progressive Direct Insurance Company. Progressive determined that Evans' and Stuivenga's competing claims could not be settled in an amount equal to or less than the policy's per person liability limit of $25,000. Progressive commenced an interpleader action and deposited the $25,000 with the district court, asking the court to determine to whom the funds should be issued. Ultimately, a jury found that Evans was the driver at the time of the accident and released the $25,000 to Stuivenga. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this appeal was not moot, as the issue presented at the outset of the action of who was driving had not ceased to exist, and Stuivenga's payment of the funds to third parties did not render the Court unable to grant effective relief; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Evans' motion for a new trial. View "Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Stuivenga" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Hardman was found guilty by a jury of deliberate homicide and tampering with evidence. The district court sentenced Hardman to 110 years in prison with no parole eligibility for thirty years. Hardman appealed his conviction and sought a new trial, contending that the district court made numerous erroneous evidentiary rulings amounting to cumulative error and requiring reversal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in any of the evidentiary rulings save one, which was the court's admission into evidence of an irrelevant photograph of Hardmann holding a gun at a shooting range, but there was no reasonable probability that the photograph contributed to Hardman's conviction, and cumulative error did not require reversal of Hardman's conviction. View "State v. Hardman" on Justia Law

Douglas Kirn was charged with two felony counts of assault on a police officer by causing reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury by use of a weapon. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, and Kirn was convicted. Kirn appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Kirn's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence because, under these circumstances, the State presented sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Kirn" on Justia Law

Kevin Kichnet was babysitting his young nieces when he met three-year-old Eternity after the Head Start bus dropped her off after school. Kichnet was allegedly holding her hand as they crossed the street when Eternity collapsed. Kitchnet called 9-1-1. After Eternity reached the hospital she was pronounced dead. Kichnet was subsequently arrested for deliberate homicide and jailed. More than six months later, charges against Kichnet were dropped when it was determined that the Head Start school bus had run over Eternity. Kichnet sued (1) Butte-Silver Bow County, claiming County law enforcement officers performed their investigation negligently, resulting in Kichnet's arrest and incarceration; and (2) the State, claiming that the State Medical Examiner performed his duties negligently when he reported Eternity's death as a homicide. The district court granted the County's and State's motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its judgment, as (1) the State was immune under the cited statutes from Kichnet's negligence claim; and (2) the court did not err in determining that there was probable cause for the arrest and incarceration of Kichnet, and that the investigation by the County was not negligent. View "Kichnet v. Butte-Silver Bow County" on Justia Law

After receiving reports of an erratic driver, a deputy sheriff approached the driver of a truck matching the report's description and asked the driver, William Muller, to perform a field sobriety test and to take a preliminary breath test. Muller refused both tests, after which the deputy sheriff arrested Muller for DUI. Muller again refused to submit to a breath test at the detention center, which resulted in the automatic suspension of his license. The district court denied Muller's subsequent petition for reinstatement of drivers license. Muller appealed, arguing that he was not properly arrested for DUI. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that the deputy officer legally arrested Muller, and therefore, the court did not err in denying Muller's petition for reinstatement of driver's license. View "Muller v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law

Defendant Michell Anders was found unconscious and lying face down on the floor of a movie store. After several police officers and EMTs arrived on the scene and were unsuccessful at reviving Anders, one of the officers searched inside Anders' purse to look for identification and medical information. Inside the purse were drugs and drug paraphernalia. Anders subsequently pled guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs, a felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor, and reserved her right to appeal the order of the district court denying her motion to suppress evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by denying Anders' motion to suppress the evidence found within her purse on the basis of the community caretaker doctrine, as the police acted appropriately under the standards the Court had adopted for application of the community caretaker doctrine. View "State v. Anders" on Justia Law

John Lacey was convicted in district court for sexual intercourse without consent based on his sexual intercourse with a minor while the minor was either asleep or intoxicated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor's statements during closing argument in the aggregate did stray so far from the permissible to satisfy the Court's standard of the exercise of plain error review, and counsel's failure to object to the statements did not constitute unreasonable conduct; and (2) the State did not impermissibly change or expand its legal theory of how Lacey committed sexual intercourse without consent, as Lacey's argument neglected the material available in the affidavit in support of the information. View "State v. Lacey" on Justia Law

Lionel Ellison was convicted in the county justice court of misdemeanor party or family member assault. He appealed the conviction to the district court. Ellison subsequently appealed from an order of the district court denying his motion to supplement the record and denying his issues on appeal. The court denied the motions, which were based upon the State's alleged withholding of exculpatory information in violation of Ellison's right to due process according to Brady v. Maryland, concluding that Ellison's claims were not ripe for appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that the district court did not err in denying Ellison's motions, as Ellison failed to establish a prima facie Brady violation and did not establish that his defense was prejudiced under the facts. View "State v. Ellison" on Justia Law

Before being arrested for DUI, Richard Bollman underwent the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. Bollman was subsequently convicted of his fifth DUI offense, a felony, after a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the court did not err in (1) finding that a highway patrol trooper was qualified under Mont. R. Evid. 702 to testify as an expert about the correlation between alcohol consumption and HGN, which was the scientific basis of the HGN test; and (2) denying Bollman's motion for a mistrial based on a police officer's reference to "felony DUIs" during questioning by the State, as any prejudice from the statement was very minor, if it was prejudicial at all, and the statement did not contribute to Bollman's conviction. View "State v. Bollman" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife filed for divorce. During the dissolution proceeding, a guardian ad litem (GAL), who was appointed for the parties' two daughters, recommended co-parenting with equal visitation by both parents. At the final hearing, the parties stipulated to the district court that they had reached agreement on a final parenting plan. They also agreed that no child support or maintenance would be paid to either party. The district court took judicial notice of the GAL's recommendations. Subsequently, and prior to dissolution, the GAL revised her recommendations and recommended that Husband be the children's primary residential parent with Wife having visitation rights. The court adopted the GAL's custody recommendation and also ordered Wife to pay Husband child support. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the GAL's revised plan constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in relying upon the hearsay evidence in order to determine the matter of child custody. Remanded. View "In re Marriage of Puccinelli" on Justia Law