Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court sentencing Defendant to ten years in Montana State Prison, with four years suspended, in connection with his conviction for aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, holding that there was no basis for reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in applying the rape shield statute to exclude a portion of the victim's texts regarding her sexual conduct; (2) the instructions provided by the district court fully and fairly instructed the jury regarding the mental state applicable to charges of sexual intercourse without consent; and (3) the district court properly instructed the jury by delivering a general unanimity instruction. View "State v. Ragner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed upon revocation, holding that the district court did not err in calculating Defendant's sentence pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203, the relevant statute governing the imposition of sentence upon revocation.Defendant pled guilty to three counts and received a sentence imposing a term of incarceration followed by period of probation. Defendant was arrested on probation violations before discharging his suspended sentence, and his suspended sentence was revoked. Upon resentencing, the court granted Defendant a total credit of 553 days. Defendant appealed his sentence imposed upon revocation, arguing that the 553 days should be credited towards each of the counts for which he was convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was only entitled to credit for elapsed time and presentence incarceration against the aggregate of the consecutive sentences imposed by the district court. View "State v. Souther" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and sentence for a DUI fourth offense, holding that Defendant was entitled to the expungement provision in effect at the time he committed an underlying offense.The State charged Defendant with a DUI third offense - a misdemeanor - but then amended the charge to DUI fourth offense - a felony - based on Defendant's three prior Texas DUI convictions. Defendant filed a motion to amend the felony back to a misdemeanor, arguing that his first conviction should be expunged. The district court denied the motion, after which Defendant pleaded guilty to DUI fourth offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred when it considered Defendant's first DUI conviction in 1990 when sentencing for his DUI conviction in 2015 because his 1990 DUI conviction should have been expunged. View "State v. Peralta" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court revoking Defendant's suspended sentence, committing him to the custody of the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) for a three-year term, and giving him credit for elapsed time and previously-served jail time, holding that the district court issued an illegal sentence.The order of the district court at issue revoked Defendant's suspended sentence, committed him to the custody of the DOC for three years, and gave him credit for 105 days of elapsed time and 181 days of previously-served jail time. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court issued an illegal sentence when it failed to credit for time served on sentences that were ordered to run concurrent to his revocation sentence. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to give Defendant credit for an additional 604 days of time served, holding that the district court imposed an illegal sentence when it failed to give Defendant credit for certain time served. View "State v. Kortan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of incest, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions based on any of his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant had not demonstrated that the victim's allegations against other male relatives were false and thus inadmissible under the Rape Shield statute; (2) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was inappropriate for review on direct appeal; and (3) this Court declines to exercise plain error review to consider whether Defendant received a fundamentally fair trial when the district court did not sua sponte exclude testimony of false reporting statistics. View "State v. McCaulou" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of sexual abuse of children, holding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress, and the error was not harmless.On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence discovered by his parole officer when the officer conducted a warrantless search of Defendant's phone. Defendant argued that the search was unreasonable because it exceeded the scope of his consent and because his parole officer lacked a valid exception to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that the probation officer's warrantless search of Defendant's digital photo gallery was not a valid probation search under the Montana Constitution, and the contraband discovered as a consequence of the unlawful search should have been suppressed under the exclusionary rule. View "State v. Mefford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part the order of the district court revoking Defendant's deferred sentence and imposing a ten-year suspended sentence without any reduction for elapsed time and remanded for the limited purpose of Manding the sentence to reflect 335 days of credit for elapsed time served prior to the revocation, holding that Defendant was entitled to credit for elapsed time.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court had full authority to reimpose Defendant's original sentence of ten years for her felony theft conviction pursuant to Mont. Coder Ann. 46-18-203(7)(a)(iv); and (2) because section 46-18-203(7)(b) imposes a legal mandate on the district court properly to credit Defendant for elapsed time and to specifically explain any denial of credit for elapsed time the district court's sentence was improper to the extent it did not factor in credit Defendant was entitled to for elapsed time. View "State v. Pennington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual abuse of children for sending text messages to his stepdaughter encouraging her to engage in sexual activity if he agreed to pay her cellular phone bill, holding that there was no reversible error in any of Defendant's claims.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to give Defendant's proposed jury instruction that a violation of privacy in communications was a lesser-included offense of sexual abuse of children; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (3) the district court's interpretation and application of the sentencing statutes were correct. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the sentence imposed by the district court follow revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence, holding that the district court erred by denying credit for elapsed time served on probation without basing the denial on specific probation violations.At issue was whether the district court violated Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203(7)(b) by denying credit for elapsed time served on probation without basing the denial on specific probation violations. The Supreme Court answered the question in the positive, holding that the district court erred by denying Defendant's requested elapsed-time credit under Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203(7)(b). View "State v. Gudmundsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual intercourse without consent, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence related to Defendant's accuser's pending DUI charge in another county; (2) the district court did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him or present his defense by limiting cross-examination of Defendant's accuser regarding alleged leniency she may have received related to her pending DUI case in return for her testimony against Defendant; and (3) the chief prosecutor’s prior representation of Defendant did not deprive the entire Lake County Attorney’s Office of authority to prosecute Defendant. View "State v. James" on Justia Law