Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the district court did not otherwise err.Defendant was convicted of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs and endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant appealed his drug offense conviction, arguing that insufficient evidence supported the conviction and that the district court deprived him of his right of allocution during his sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant's drug conviction; and (2) Defendant failed to preserve the allocution issue. View "State v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's petition to expunge or predesignate as a civil infraction his felony conviction of criminal possession of dangerous drugs, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's petition.Defendant pled guilty to possessing over sixty grams of marijuana. After voters passed the Montana Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MMRTA), now codified as Title 16, chapter 12, MCA, Defendant petitioned for expungement or redesignation of his marijuana conviction. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Defendant was not eligible for expungement or redesignation because the MMRTA does not permit the marijuana-related conduct for which Defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, on its face, Defendant's conviction did not qualify for expungement or redesignation under the MMRTA. View "Maier v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the municipal court revoking Defendant's deferred sentence and imposing a six-month suspended sentence, holding that the municipal court did not err or abuse its discretion.When he violated an order of protection Defendant violated a condition of his deferred six-month sentence for misdemeanor sexual assault. The district court affirmed the municipal court's decision revoking Defendant's deferred sentence and imposing a suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the municipal court (1) correctly applied the law when it revoked Defendant's sentence; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Defendant's six-month deferred sentence and imposed a six-month suspended sentence. View "City of Missoula v. Sadiku" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant on the offense of partner or family member strangulation, holding that the district court did not commit plain error by failing to make a record inquiry and determination as to whether Defendant validly waived his right to testify at trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court committed plain error by allowing defense counsel to waive Defendant's right to testify at trial through counsel without a record inquiry and judicial finding that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently chose not to do so. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no evidence that the district court erred as to this issue. View "State v. Abel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of indecent exposure to a minor, sexual abuse of children in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(c) and (4), and sexual abuse of children, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(c) and (2)(b), holding that Defendant's counsel provided record-based ineffective assistance of counsel that required reversal and remand for a new trial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the statutory basis for Count I when the statute upon which the charge was based did not go into effect until after one of the alleged incidents occurred; and (2) the ex post facto application of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(c) for Count II and Count III required remand for a new trial. View "State v. Tipton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing order of the district court requiring Defendant to pay $3,025 in restitution for his extradition from Georgia and to surrender his medical marijuana card, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court's sentence was illegal or that it abused its discretion.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in ordering him to pay restitution when his only income consisted of Army disability benefits and erred in requiring him to surrender his medical marijuana card pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-202(1)(f). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's sentence was lawful; and (2) the condition of Defendant's sentence that he surrender his medical marijuana card was constitutional and lawful. View "State v. Corriher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for a new trial on the offense of partner or family members assault (PFMA), third or subsequent offense, holding that the district court committed reversible error.The State charged Defendant with third or subsequent offense PFMA based on incriminating audio-video camera footage capturing Defendant's belligerent verbal and physical interaction with his teenage son and subsequent incriminating statements made in a post-arrest interrogation interview conducted by a sheriff's deputy. After he was convicted, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that the court erroneously allowed the video playbacks to the jury without notice to the parties. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial based on a violation of Mont. Code Ann. 46-16-503(2) and the related common law rule limiting the rehearing or replay of testimonial evidence during jury deliberations. View "State v. Hoover" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of sexual assault, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting his minor stepdaughters. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court deprived him of his right to present a complete defense and requested either dismissal of his case or a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it ruled that the State did not deliberately destroy potentially exculpatory evidence; (2) did not err when it prevented Defendant from presenting evidence to the jury relating to the State's alleged destruction of evidence; and (3) did not abuse its discretion when it limited the scope of testimony by Defendant's expert witness. View "State v. Villanueva" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress illegal drug evidence seized as a result of a protective pat-down search for weapons and in a subsequent search of his vehicle, holding that the district court erred in concluding that the protective pat-down search of Defendant was justified.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erroneously held that the pat-down search of Defendant was justified under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and Mont. Code Ann. 46-5-401(2)(b), whether incident to a valid Terry investigative stop or analogous community caretaker doctrine stop, but did not err in concluding that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the illegal drug evidence seized in the warrantless pat-down and vehicle searches at issue; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in his coat pocket as a result of the initial pat-down search but correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in the subsequent consent search of his vehicle. View "State v. Laster" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual intercourse without consent, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting admission of evidence regarding other acts and statements made by Defendant.Defendant filed a motion in liming to preclude the admission of evidence involving the occurrence of any other sexual acts or statements regarding the victim. The district court denied the motion, concluding that evidence of Defendant's sexual conduct with the victim, apart from the conduct alleged in the information, was relevant and admissible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. View "State v. Murphy" on Justia Law