Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and commitment of the district court sentencing Appellant to fifty-five years in the Montana State Prison, including a consecutive ten-year commitment to the Department of Corrections, for his two criminal endangerment convictions, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that his two criminal endangerment convictions violated Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-410(2)(a), the multiple charges statute, because his convictions arose from the same transaction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's convictions of criminal endangerment were based on two distinct criminal offenses and therefore did not violate the multiple charges statute. View "State v. McNamara" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant for robbery, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel during his criminal trial. Defendant also argued, for the first time, that the district court compromised his right to a unanimous jury verdict by not giving a specific unanimity instruction requiring the jury to agree that either or both victims were in fear of immediate bodily injury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel; and (2) this Court declines to exercise plain error review to address Defendant's second argument on appeal. View "State v. Winzenburg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and judgment of guilty for the offense of escape, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.The State charged Defendant with felony escape after he failed to report to his probation offense. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and Defendant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence; and (2) did not err in declining to provide Defendant's requested jury instruction for criminal contempt as a lesser-included offense. View "State v. Ohl" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's sentence on Defendant's convictions for escape and assault on a peace officer, holding that the district court erred in calculating credit for time served and in imposing supervisory conditions on Defendant's future parole.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the trial court failed properly to credit the time Defendant spent in jail prior to sentencing after he was committed on another offense to the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC), and (2) the court improperly imposed supervisory conditions on Defendant's unsuspended sentence to the DOC. The State conceded the second issue on appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) erred by granting Defendant only 56 days of credit for time served and should have given for time served in the amount of 396 days; and (2) erred in imposing supervisory conditions on Defendant's sentence when it was ordered entirely unsuspended. View "State v. Spagnolo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant for assault with a weapon, holding that the district court erred in its calculation of Defendant's credit for time served.On appeal, Defendant challenged several evidentiary rulings and the calculation of credit toward his sentence for time served. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that the district court (1) did not err by admitting the victim's hospital statement at trial as a prior inconsistent statement; (2) did not err by admitting evidence of a conversation between Defendant and his girlfriend as an admission by party-opponent; and (3) should have awarded Defendant an additional 269 days of credit for time served. View "State v. Pitkanen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence confiscated by a adult foster care group home's manager who subsequently turned the evidence over to the police, holding that the district court did not err when it failed to suppress the evidence.The manager of the group home contacted the police on several occasions stating that she had confiscated child pornography from Defendant, a resident of the group home, pursuant to the group home's rules. The manager gave the police the confiscated evidence, which led to the grant and execution of a search warrant. Defendant was subsequently charged with possession of child pornography. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, which the district court denied. Defendant subsequently entered into a plea agreement with the State. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) the group home manager was acting as a private party when she confiscated Defendant's electronic devices containing pornography; and (2) Defendant consented to the manager confiscating his electronic devices by agreeing to the group home's rules. View "State v. Larson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Defendant's motion to allow withdrawal of his guilty plea and dismiss the underlying matter on double jeopardy grounds, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss and the criminal endangerment and criminal mischief charges in Jefferson County.Jefferson County charged Defendant with criminal endangerment, fleeing from or eluding a peace officer, and criminal mischief. The next month, Gallatin County charged with him criminal endangerment and fleeing from or eluding a peace officer. Defendant pled guilty to both charges. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss the Jefferson County charges, arguing that they violated constitutional double jeopardy protections. The district court allowed the motion as to the fleeing from or eluding a peace officer charge and otherwise denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea as to the criminal endangerment and criminal mischief charges. View "State v. Dunne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's suspended sentence and imposing a sentence with a termination date beyond the original sentence, holding that the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant to a term no greater than his original sentence and in denying credit for elapsed time.Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of felony indecent exposure. The State later filed a petition to revoke Defendant's sentence. The district court imposed a suspended sentence with a termination date beyond the original sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not violate either Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203(7)(a)(iii) or Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203(7)(b) in sentencing Defendant to a term no greater than his original sentence and in denying credit for elapsed time. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to prevent silent security camera footage from being made available to the jury during deliberations and subsequent judgment of guilty to the charge of deliberate homicide, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of deliberate homicide and sentenced to a 100-year term of imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by allowing silent video footage from the neighbor's security camera to go into the jury room during deliberations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where the camera footage at issue was neither testimonial in nature nor cared any substantial risk of undue emphasis, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to provide the jury with unrestricted access to this footage during deliberations. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of deliberate homicide and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, holding that Defendant's assignments of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the State's 391-day delay in bringing his case to trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial under both the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where the delay was primarily institutional under the conditions presented at the time by the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and where Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice, Defendant failed to establish that he was denied his right to a speedy trial; and (2) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to strike the jury panel. View "State v. Hesse" on Justia Law