Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress based on its determination that Defendant had not been seized, holding that the district court clearly erred when it concluded that Defendant was not seized.Defendant was found guilty of felony possession with intent to distribute. The district court order denying Defendant's motion to suppress concluded that Defendant voluntarily engaged with the law enforcement officer and was not seized because a reasonable person would have felt free to disengage and leave. Further, the order concluded that Defendant validly consented to the officer searching his vehicle. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant was seized in this case; and (2) the officer did not have particularized suspicion to justify the seizure. View "State v. Pham" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony criminal endangerment, misdemeanor stalking, and felony stalking, holding that the district court did not err.The first trial in this case resulted in a hung jury. A year later, a second trial was held, and Defendant was convicted. At issue on appeal was whether the admission of a railroad tie at the second trial was proper because it was not in the same condition as the first trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by not dismissing the stalking charges for insufficient evidence; and (2) did not err by admitting the railroad tie into evidence at the second trial after it had been exposed to the elements following the first trial and its condition deteriorated. View "State v. Hren" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony assault on a peace officer, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it decided not to instruct the jury on the defense of justifiable use of force.On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court judge's determination that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant justifiable use of force instructions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented did not demonstrate unlawful force by the officer that would justify self-defense; and (2) therefore, the denial of Defendant's proposed justified use of force instructions was not an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Marquez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the deliberate homicide case against him, holding that the district court erred when it ordered Appellant to pay his public defender fees.Appellant was convicted of the deliberate homicide of his father and for tampering with evidence. The district court imposed a seventy-year prison year for the two offenses and ordered Appellant to pay $25,250 in costs for the assistance of assigned counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's due process rights were not violated by the State's conduct investigating and relating the crime scene; (2) the prosecutor's comments at trial did not improperly distort Appellant's presumption of innocence or the State's burden of proof; but (3) the imposition of costs must be stricken in the interests of justice. View "State v. Fisher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of bail-jumping, one count for each scheduled trial he missed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in granting the State's Gillham motion to allow his former attorney to testify and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the District Court did not err by allowing Defendant's former attorney to testify as a state witness in his bail-jumping trial, and the testimony did not violate Defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel; and (2) Defendant's remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims were unavailing. View "State v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual assault and incest involving his biological son, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that sexual assault is a lesser included offense of incest and that his conviction violated double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's convictions for sexual assault and incest did not violate the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution, the Montana Constitution, and Mont. Code An. 46-11-410; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's representation was deficient. View "State v. Valenzuela" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Petitioner's petition to expunge or redesignate as a civil infraction his charge of felony criminal production or manufacture of dangerous drugs, holding that the district court did not err by denying Petitioner's petition to expunge his felony charge of criminal manufacture of dangerous drugs.At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the actions that led to Petitioner's 2002 marijuana charge were permitted under the Montana Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MMRTA), which allows for the legal possession and use of limited quantities of marijuana for adults, thus entitling him to expungement or predesignation of the charge as a civil infraction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not qualify for expungement under the MMRTA because he did not have the landowner's written permission to grow marijuana on the property, as required by the MMRTA. View "Rairdan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the sentencing order and judgment issued by the district court imposing a four-year suspended sentence for Defendant's convictions for criminal possession of dangerous drugs, holding that Defendant received ineffective assistance during the sentencing hearing.On appeal, Defendant argued that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney, while arguing for a deferred sentence, failed to inform the district court of his authority to impose an alternative sentence under Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-202. The Supreme Court agreed, reversed Defendant's sentence, and remanded for resentencing, holding that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentence when her counsel failed to cite the Alternative Sentencing Authority, Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-202, as authority for Defendant's eligibility for a deferred sentence. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of three counts of felony sexual intercourse without consent with a victim twelve years old or younger, holding that eliciting testimony that vouched for the victim's credibility and the prosecutor's personally commenting on the victim's reliability as a witness undermined Defendant's right to a fair trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State's questioning of its expert witnesses, whom bolstered the victim's credibility, and the prosecutor's statement during closing argument that the victim was a "reliable witness" undermined his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the convictions, holding that the testimony elicited from four witnesses vouching for the victim's credibility and the prosecutor personally commenting that the victim was a reliable witness who had no incentive to lie violated Defendant's right to a fair trial. View "State v. Byrne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming Defendant's conviction for misdemeanor resisting arrest, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the municipal court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for an in camera review of the arresting officer's personnel file for incidents of excessive use of force and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the municipal court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for an in camera review of the officer's personnel file for instances of excessive force; and (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for resisting arrest. View "State v. Howard" on Justia Law