Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Early one morning in November 2021, law enforcement responded to reports of a driver exhibiting erratic behavior in Billings Heights, Montana. The driver, Cleve Ernest Spang, was observed swerving, driving at inconsistent speeds, and nearly colliding with a guard rail. Upon confrontation, Spang displayed signs of alcohol impairment, failed field sobriety tests, and admitted to drinking, though he refused breath and blood tests. Further investigation revealed Spang had four prior DUI convictions.Following his arrest, Spang entered into a plea agreement in August 2022, agreeing to plead guilty to felony DUI in exchange for a recommended sentence of five years with the Department of Corrections, all suspended, participation in a treatment program, and a $5,000 fine. After Spang was not accepted into the treatment program, the State recommended, and the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court imposed, a 13-month commitment to the Department of Corrections, a five-year suspended sentence, and a $5,000 fine.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, Spang challenged only the imposition of the $5,000 fine. He argued that the fine was illegal based on a prior Montana Supreme Court decision, State v. Gibbons, which had held the relevant statute unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana recently overruled Gibbons in State v. Cole, holding that the mandatory fine provisions can be harmonized with statutes requiring consideration of a defendant’s financial ability to pay. The court held that Spang did not waive his right to appeal the fine by entering the plea agreement. Affirming the imposition of the fine, the court remanded the case to the District Court to evaluate Spang’s ability to pay, as required by statute. View "State v. Spang" on Justia Law

In this case, law enforcement in Teton County, Montana, conducted a home search at the defendant’s residence in January 2015 as part of a probation check on his brother. During the search, officers discovered marijuana and two laptops in the defendant’s bedroom. The laptops were later forfeited to the sheriff’s office. Over a year later, a Department of Homeland Security agent forensically examined the laptops and found thousands of images and multiple videos of child pornography on one of them, attributed to a single user account. Based on these findings, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of Sexual Abuse of Children.After charges were filed in April 2017, the defendant could not be located, having absconded from probation. He was arrested in Mexico in June 2021, deported to Texas, and extradited to Montana shortly thereafter. The trial was initially set for early 2022 but was continued several times due to various reasons, including ongoing plea negotiations, defense counsel’s unavailability, and logistical issues. The defendant’s counsel sought access to the original laptop hard drives to verify the forensic findings but was only allowed to view cloned copies under law enforcement supervision. When denied broader access, the defense moved to compel, and also moved to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the district court erred in denying the defendant’s motions. The Supreme Court held that the delay in bringing the case to trial was largely attributable to the defendant’s own actions in absconding, and the State’s delays were mostly institutional rather than deliberate. The Court found no speedy trial violation, no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to compel access to the original hard drives, and no abuse of discretion in admitting contested trial exhibits. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of Criminal Endangerment in 2015 and later Issuing a Bad Check in 2017, receiving concurrent five-year suspended sentences. In 2019, after a consolidated revocation proceeding, both sentences were revoked and reimposed as concurrent five-year suspended commitments, with credit awarded for time served and street time as agreed by the parties. In 2022, a second consolidated revocation resulted in the reimposition of concurrent five-year suspended sentences, again with credits for incarceration and street time based on a joint recommendation. In 2024, a third revocation was sought against only one of the cases, resulting in revocation and imposition of an unsuspended five-year sentence, with credits for incarceration and street time awarded as determined at the hearing.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, handled each revocation proceeding. During the relevant proceedings, credits for time served and street time were awarded based on the parties’ stipulations or the court’s findings. At the January 2025 hearing, both prior and current credits were discussed and agreed upon.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred by failing to award the defendant twelve additional days of jail credit and three months of street time credit. The Supreme Court held that the defendant was not entitled to credit in the later case for incarceration served before the sentences merged because credit for time served applies only from the date concurrent sentences merge. The Court further held that, because the defendant stipulated to the amount of street time credited and did not object at the 2019 revocation, any claim to additional credit was waived. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s order. View "State v. Schmiedeke" on Justia Law

The defendant was involved in a physical altercation with a police officer at a homeless shelter after refusing to leave and lighting papers on fire. The officer used force to prevent the defendant from re-entering the building, leading to the defendant headbutting and punching the officer. The State charged the defendant with assault on a peace officer resulting in bodily injury. During the pretrial and trial stages, defense counsel initially did not raise any mental disease or defect defense but reserved the right to do so pending further evaluation. The defendant was disruptive in court, displaying unusual behavior during the trial.The Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, presided over the case. At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of assault on a peace officer resulting in bodily injury. Before sentencing, the defendant underwent an independent psychological evaluation diagnosing him with schizophrenia and autism-spectrum disorder. The defense requested alternative sentencing under Montana’s mental disease sentencing statutes or a continuance for further evaluation, but the court proceeded to sentence the defendant to ten years in prison without conducting the statutory analysis for mental disease or defect or considering placement with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion by failing to evaluate the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense as required under Montana law. The Supreme Court held that the District Court erred by imposing sentence without first determining whether the defendant satisfied the statutory criteria for alternative sentencing based on mental disease or defect. The Supreme Court reversed the sentence and remanded for further proceedings, directing the District Court to perform the required analysis and, if appropriate, consider alternative sentencing. View "State v. Myers-Starks" on Justia Law

The case involved a man who was charged with felony intimidation after an incident at a pre-release center in Helena, Montana. While reporting for a required urinalysis as a condition of probation, the defendant became upset with a staff member, Curt McAlpin, after being told his test was positive and would be reported to authorities. He was accused of threatening to “shoot up” the center if he had a gun, which caused alarm to McAlpin and led to subsequent police involvement. This event also formed the basis for revoking the defendant’s previously suspended sentence for earlier felony violations of an order of protection.Previously, in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, the defendant was convicted by a jury of felony intimidation. The court denied his motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence and for a directed verdict of acquittal. The court also revoked his probation and resentenced him on the prior convictions, giving him credit for certain periods without violations. The defendant was sentenced to consecutive five-year prison terms for the intimidation conviction and the probation revocation. He then appealed both the conviction and the sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to convict the defendant of intimidation, the jury instructions were proper or any error was harmless, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding evidentiary rulings. The court found no reversible plain error, no ineffective assistance of counsel on the record-based claims, and no cumulative error. The calculation of elapsed-time credit for the probation revocation was upheld as legal. The Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and the sentence. View "State v. Strobel" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of felony strangulation of a partner or family member after an incident in which she physically assaulted S.R., her romantic partner. During their relationship, the appellant exhibited a pattern of abusive behavior, including emotional and physical abuse, financial control, and threats. The charged offense occurred during a confrontation related to S.R.’s Facebook communication with another person. During this incident, the appellant took S.R.’s phone and, after a struggle, placed S.R. in a chokehold, applying significant weight that caused pain and lightheadedness but did not result in loss of consciousness. S.R. did not immediately report the assault but later confided in her sister, who helped her contact law enforcement. The appellant was subsequently interviewed by detectives, during which her statements about the incident changed multiple times.The First Judicial District Court for Lewis and Clark County initially declared a mistrial due to comments made in the presence of the jury regarding the controlling nature of the relationship. In preparation for the second trial, the court considered the admissibility of evidence of other acts of domestic violence by the appellant. The court ultimately allowed testimony regarding a pattern of abuse and control, excluding only allegations of prior sexual assault as unduly prejudicial, and permitted limited testimony about prior strangulation.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of other acts under Montana Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). The Supreme Court held that the evidence was properly admitted for non-propensity purposes, specifically to demonstrate motive, explain the relationship dynamics, and clarify the victim’s behavior and credibility. The Court concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the conviction. View "State v. Mann" on Justia Law

A man was convicted in 2012 of felony murder following the death of a two-year-old child for whom he was the primary caretaker. The child had suffered severe head injuries consistent with nonaccidental trauma and was pronounced brain dead after being transported to a hospital. Law enforcement interviewed the man, who was advised of his Miranda rights and did not confess but offered alternative explanations for the injuries. He received a 100-year sentence without parole.After his conviction, the man filed a petition for postconviction relief in the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, primarily alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on several grounds, including failure to move to suppress his statements to police, not hiring an independent medical expert, conceding in closing argument that the child’s injuries were not accidental, and not allowing him to testify. Initially denied without counsel, the case was remanded for appointment of counsel and a new hearing. With counsel, he renewed his claims and added an allegation that the State had not produced certain discovery related to a drug investigation at the residence. After a second evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied all claims, finding either they were procedurally barred, unsupported by evidence, or reflected reasonable trial strategy.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Applying the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that the man failed to demonstrate deficient performance by either his trial or appellate counsel, or resulting prejudice. The Court found that counsel’s actions were reasonable strategic decisions under the circumstances and that no meritorious claims for ineffective assistance or other postconviction relief were established. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s denial of the petition. View "Hyslop v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was arrested in October 2021 and charged with robbery and disorderly conduct. Initial proceedings raised concerns about his mental fitness, and he was evaluated at Montana State Hospital. Multiple evaluations between December 2021 and April 2023 determined that he was unfit to proceed, largely due to his refusal to take medication. In October 2022, the court authorized involuntary medication following a Sell v. United States hearing. By April 2023, the defendant was found fit to proceed, and at a subsequent hearing, he was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. In July 2023, a plea agreement was reached where the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in exchange for dismissal of the disorderly conduct charge.The Fourth Judicial District Court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea after confirming it was entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. At the change of plea hearing, the defendant expressed concern about a potential speedy trial violation and asked to have it noted for the record. The court acknowledged the statement but declined to accept briefing on the issue, and neither the defendant nor his counsel filed a motion or objected further. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to ten years, with credit for time served.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana considered whether the lower court abused its discretion by refusing to accept briefing on the speedy trial issue and whether the issue was preserved for review. The Supreme Court held that by voluntarily and knowingly pleading guilty without first obtaining an adverse ruling on a timely filed motion, the defendant waived all nonjurisdictional defects, including claims of speedy trial violations. The Court also declined to review the claim under the plain-error doctrine, finding no manifest miscarriage of justice. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

Police investigated a domestic disturbance in December 2020 involving the appellant, who was subsequently charged in Yellowstone County, Montana, with his fourth DUI-related offense. The State later amended the charges to include DUI per se for operating a noncommercial vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, fourth or subsequent offense. The appellant entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the amended charge in exchange for dismissal of the original DUI charge. At sentencing, both parties recommended specific incarceration and treatment conditions, and agreed to a $5,000 fine. The appellant requested that certain fees be waived due to his financial circumstances.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court accepted the plea, dismissed the original charge, and imposed the recommended sentence, including the mandatory-minimum $5,000 fine under § 61-8-731(1)(a)(iii), MCA (2019). The court also orally stated it would waive several fees. However, the written judgment subsequently entered required the appellant to pay a variety of fees and surcharges, contrary to the oral pronouncement. The appellant appealed, arguing that the mandatory fine was unconstitutional and that the imposition of fees conflicted with the oral pronouncement.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. Guided by its recent decision in State v. Cole, the Court held that sentencing courts must consider a defendant’s ability to pay when imposing the mandatory-minimum fine and may suspend the portion a defendant is unable to pay. Because the District Court made no findings regarding the appellant’s ability to pay, the Supreme Court reversed the fine and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Cole. The Court also ordered the written judgment to be amended to conform to the fees waived in open court. View "State v. C. Horn" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged in three separate cases with felony offenses in Lake County, Montana, including driving under the influence for a fourth or subsequent offense. The State also sought to revoke a previously imposed suspended sentence in another DUI case. A global plea agreement was reached, and the Twentieth Judicial District Court conducted a combined sentencing hearing. The court imposed consecutive prison terms and, as relevant here, imposed a $5,000 fine for the felony DUI, which it fully suspended after considering the defendant’s financial situation. The written judgment also included a condition allowing the probation office to reinstate suspended fines and fees if the defendant failed to comply with probation terms.The defendant appealed, challenging only two aspects of the judgment: the legality of the $5,000 fine, and the condition permitting the probation office to reinstate suspended financial penalties. The State conceded that the delegation to the probation office was improper but otherwise defended the judgment. The defendant argued that the mandatory minimum fine was unconstitutional, relying on a recent Montana Supreme Court decision. The State countered that the statute at issue was not addressed in that case and urged affirmance.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that, consistent with its more recent decision in State v. Cole, it is permissible for a sentencing court to impose the statutory $5,000 minimum fine for felony DUI, provided the court determines the defendant’s ability to pay and uses its authority to suspend the fine as appropriate. The court affirmed the imposition and suspension of the fine, finding the sentence lawful. However, the court held that the district court lacked authority to delegate to the probation office the power to reinstate suspended fines and fees. The case was remanded for entry of an amended judgment striking that condition. View "State v. Trombley" on Justia Law