Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant's second petition for postconviction relief (PCR) relating to his convictions for two counts of sexual intercourse without consent, two counts of incest, and one count of tampering with a witness, holding that Appellant's second petition was time barred.Based on a victim's affidavit, Appellant brought his second successive petition for PCR arguing that he had newly discovered evidence that the State had coached the victim. The district court dismissed the claims without ordering the State to respond. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's petition was time barred. View "State v. Worthan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict and subsequent judgment of conviction and sentencing order issued by the district court convicting Defendant of sexual abuse of children and sentencing her to 100 years at the Montana Women's Prison with fifty years suspended for knowingly selling her four-year-old daughter, J.L.D., to a man for sex, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err in excluding evidence pursuant to the Rape Shield statute that J.L.D. was abused by other men; (2) did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of other uncharged bad acts; (3) did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial by soliciting testimony from an investigating detective; (4) did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation by requiring that litigants, witnesses, and jurors wear masks or face shields during trial; (5) did not abuse its discretion in limiting voir dire as it did; and (6) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the State's failure to disclose an investigative note. View "State v. Mountain Chief" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court adjudging Defendant guilty of five offenses, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over counts one, four, and five, and therefore, Defendant's convictions on those counts were improper.Defendant was adjudged guilty of misdemeanor assault (count one), felony assault on a peace officer or judicial officer (count two) and three counts of misdemeanor assault with a bodily fluid (counts three, four, and five). Defendant pled guilty to the misdemeanor charges and was found guilty by a jury on the felony charge. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred by retaining jurisdiction over counts one, four and five; and (2) remand was required for the district court to amend the charge imposed with the sentence for count two from $200 to $20 and for count three from $20 to $15. View "State v. Pehringer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court imposing sentencing conditions limiting Defendant's ability to access the internet or possess certain electronic devices, holding that three conditions were overly broad.Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent for communicating with the victim through text messaging and Snapchat. The district court sentenced Defendant to a twelve year term of incarceration and imposed the conditions at issue on appeal regarding technology use. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's imposition of the three challenged conditions, holding that, in their current incarceration, the conditions failed to consider the multiple legitimate purposes for internet usage, but that, as modified by the Court, the conditions provided Defendant the change to rehabilitate outside of the prison setting and the community protection from future criminal activity. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, holding that, while the State did not show a valid reason for the over 1,300-day delay in bringing Defendant's case to trial, Defendant was not prejudiced.On May 23, 2017, the State charged Defendant with felony criminal distribution of dangerous drugs and felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute. On February 10, 2021, Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, and the remaining charge was dismissed. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its balance of the speedy trial factors and in concluding that Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Daly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions and sentence for negligent vehicular assault, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct, holding that the district court committed reversible error by responding to the jury's questions about the definition and timing of "arrest" without first consulting Defendant and counsel on record.On appeal, Defendant argued that his right to be present was violated during a point at trial "where the jury made a substantive inquiry about the law pertaining to the charge of resisting arrest" under the facts of this case. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed as to Defendant's conviction for resisting arrest, holding that when the district court responded to questions from the deliberating jury outside of Defendant's presence, it constituted reversible error because it was during a critical stage of the proceedings. View "State v. Zitnik" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for threats and other improper influence in official and political matters but remanded for the district court to strike its imposition of pretrial supervision costs, holding that the court erred in imposing pretrial supervision costs without considering Defendant's ability to pay. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) considering the probative value of the evidence and the limited risk of unfair prejudice, the district court did not abuse its discretion Under Iowa R. Evid. 403 by admitting evidence of Defendant's prior sex offense; and (2) the district court erred by imposing pretrial supervision costs without considering whether Defendant had the ability to pay the costs. View "State v. Hardin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's request to provide a jury instruction on th lesser-included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide and the ensuing sentencing order and judgment for felony deceptive practices, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction of deceptive practices.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erroneously refused his request to provide a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide and that insufficient evidence supported the jury's guilty verdict as to his felony deceptive practices conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's first claim of error was unavailing; and (2) the evidence was legally insufficient to convict Defendant of felony deceptive practices, and therefore, acquittal on this count was proper. View "State v. Craft" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the municipal court sentencing Appellant for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater (DUI per se), first offense, holding that the municipal court lawfully ordered Appellant to satisfy a $600 fine using his COVID-19 stimulus payment but erred in concluding that it did not have discretion to suspend the fine or to enforce the fine through an alternative method of payment.Appellant pleaded guilty to an amended misdemeanor charge of first-offense DUI per se and agreed to the minimum $600 fine with the understanding that he would ask the court to consider his ability to pay the fine. The municipal court sentenced Appellant to ten days of incarceration and a $600 fine. Appellant appealed, arguing that the municipal court erred in imposing the fine despite his inability to pay. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the municipal court abused its discretion by not recognizing that it possessed the discretion to order Appellant to satisfy the mandatory fine via alternative methods to a dollar-for-dollar repayment plan ordered by the municipal court. View "City of Whitefish v. Curran" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the State's felony charge against him for failure to register as a sexual offender, holding that the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA), as amended since 2007, was punitive in nature.Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in 1994 and served and discharged his sentence. At the time, SVORA, known then as Montana's Sexual offender Registration Act, required Defendant to maintain registration for ten years. When the legislature amended SVORA, it included more onerous steps and applied them retroactively to previously convicted registrants such as Defendant. In 2019, Defendant was charged with failure to register. Defendant appealed, arguing that the amended SVORA requirements rendered the statute an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment for his earlier crime. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) SVORA as amended is punitive in nature; and (2) therefore, the requirements brought on by those amendments could not retroactively be applied to defendants whose convictions predate the amendments. View "State v. Hinman" on Justia Law