Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of sexual intercourse without consent, holding that Defendant's constitutional right to confront his accusers was violated during his second criminal trial.The victim, T.C., was thirteen years old, deaf, and developmentally delayed. During trial, the district court found T.C. incompetent and declared a mistrial. At the second trial, Defendant objected to the hearsay testimony from five witnesses who would testify to what T.C. told them. Defendant argued that his right to confrontation was violated when he was denied his request to interview or depose T.C. and when he could not cross-examine T.C. during trial. Defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting T.C. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the court admitted testimony from three witnesses about T.C.'s out-of-court statements without Defendant having a prior opportunity to cross-examine T.C., and the error was not harmless. View "State v. Tome" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for felony driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) and misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer, holding that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel and that Defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance.At issue was whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to object to an incorrect jury instruction, which lowered the State's burden of proof on the offense of obstructing a peace officer. The Supreme Court held that Defendant did receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorneys neither objected to the incorrect instruction nor proposed the correct one themselves and that a new trial was warranted. View "State v. Secrease" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's pro se motion to vacate and challenge to jurisdiction and the subsequent order of revocation and imposition of sentence revoking Defendant's previous sentence and sentencing him for failure to register as a sexual offender, holding that the State's delay in bringing Defendant to Montana to appear before a judge in his revocation proceeding violated his right to due process.Defendant pled guilty to failure to register as a sexual offender and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which was suspended. The State later filed a petition for revocation of sentence, alleging that Defendant violated the terms of his probation and absconded from supervision. Defendant was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury for failing to register as a sex offender after traveling from Montana to New York. Defendant's federal charge was later dismissed, and Defendant personally appeared in the district court. The court then revoked Defendant's prior sentence and imposed a sentence of almost three years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State violated Defendant's right to due process by failing to bring him before a judge to answer his revocation proceedings for nearly two years. View "State v. Cameron" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking additional credit for time served, holding that Petitioner demonstrated that he was entitled to the writ.In 2004, Petitioner was convicted of felony aggravated assault. In 2013, he was granted parole. In 2019, while released on parole, Petitioner was arrested for felony criminal endangerment. Petitioner remained in custody through sentencing, and in 2020, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the felony criminal endangerment charge. In this action, Petitioner challenged the legality of his sentence on the criminal endangerment charge, asserting that Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-403(1) required the district court to credit him with the 489 days he spent incarcerated on the offense prior to sentencing. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the matter to the district court to amend Defendant's sentence to include credit for time served, a total of 489 days. View "Killam v. Salmonsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for indecent exposure to a minor, holding that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings and did not impose and unduly harsh sentence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erroneously allowed cross-examination of Defendant about a prior allegation of sexual misconduct toward his daughters to rebut his assertion that he previously had an "awesome" relationship with his daughters. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant opened the door to the limited cross-examination allowed regarding the otherwise inadmissible allegations; and (2) Defendant's assertion that his sentence was "unduly harsh" was not subject to review on direct appeal. View "State v. McGhee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment issued by the district court denying Defendant full credit for all days he spent incarcerated from the date he was served with an arrest warrant through sentencing, holding that Defendant was entitled to credit against his sentence from the date he was served with the arrest warrant to the date he was sentenced.Defendant was charged with felony driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI). Defendant pleaded guilty to the DUI. After he was sentenced, Defendant appealed, asserting that, pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-403(1), he was entitled to credit for the time he was served with the arrest warrant to the date he was sentenced. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the matter to the district court to amend the judgment and provide Defendant credit according to this opinion, holding that Defendant was entitled to credit for each day he was incarcerated from his arrest to sentencing, regardless of whether he was also being held in connection with another matter in a different county. View "State v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the criminal endangerment charge against him, holding that, under a de novo standard of review, the State alleged sufficient facts in support of its charge of criminal endangerment to withstand a motion to dismiss.The State filed an information charging Defendant with felony criminal endangerment under Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-207(1). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge on the grounds that there were no facts establishing probable cause that he had committed the offense of criminal endangerment. The district court granted the motion to dismiss without providing reasons for its decision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State established a probability that Defendant committed the offense of criminal endangerment. View "State v. Giffin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order and judgment issued by the district court following Defendant's convictions for sexual assault, three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, and sexual abuse of children, holding that the district court erred by misapplying Montana's rape shield statute, Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-511(2), and violated Defendant's constitutional confrontation rights.After the State charged Defendant with sexually assaulting I.A., a female minor, law enforcement received a tip that Cody Hill and I.A. were involved in an inappropriate sexual relationship. The State subsequently charged Hill was sexually abusing I.A. Defendant sought a motion to compel seeking confidential criminal justice information from the criminal file regarding Hill. The district court denied Defendant's motion to compel and convicted Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by not requiring the State to provide additional confidential criminal justice information from the Hill investigation; but (2) erred by misapplying the rape shield statute and violated Defendant's constitutional right to confront his accuser and present evidence in his defense by disallowing evidence that Hill abused I.A. in an identical manner less than two weeks before the incident at issue in this case. View "State v. Twardoski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court revoking the suspended portion of Appellant's sentence, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.When Appellant was sixteen, the youth court found Appellant to be a delinquent youth, and Appellant received a juvenile disposition consisting of both a juvenile sentence and an adult sentence. After Appellant admitted to violations of the conditions of his sentence the judge implemented the adult sentence in modified form. The State later filed a second petition to revoke, and the judge revoked Appellant's deferred adult sentences and sentenced him to a term of incarceration. When Appellant was twenty-seven years old the State filed a third petition to revoke. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the youth court's jurisdiction over him ended when he reached the age of twenty-five and that the judge had not transferred the case to the district court. The judge denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the youth court lost jurisdiction over Appellant when he reached his twenty-fifth birthday and the case was not transferred to a district court; and (2) the lower court lacked jurisdiction and imposed an illegal sentence. View "In re S.G.-H.M. Jr." on Justia Law