Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and commitment of the district court following Defendant's felony convictions of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault, holding that the district court did not commit reversible error by answering a question posed by the jury without consulting the parties.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the Court should exercise plain error review regarding his claims about expert testimony undermining his presumption of innocence; and (3) the district court erred by answering a jury question during deliberation without consulting the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court declines to consider Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal; (2) this Court declines to exercise plain error review regarding Defendant's claims about expert witness testimony; and (3) the district court did not commit reversible error by answering the jury's question without consulting the parties. View "State v. Sinz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming Defendant's judgment of conviction on the offense of criminal possession of drug paraphernalia, holding that the justice court did not illegally impose a ten-day jail term as a condition of a deferred imposition of sentence.Defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of drug paraphernalia, as charged. The court deferred imposition of sentence for a period of six months subject to the conditions that Defendant pay a $350 fine and various statutory surcharges, complete twenty hours of community service, and serve ten days in the county jail. On appeal, Defendant argued that the jail-time condition was an illegal condition of a deferred sentence, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-10-103. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the justice court did not erroneously impose ten days of jail time as a condition of Defendant's deferred imposition of sentence. View "State v. Thibeault" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming Defendant's jury conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, holding that Defendant was denied his confrontation rights.On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence stemming from the stop of the vehicle and argued that the justice court improperly allowed a State witness to appear by two-way video at trial. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the trooper lawfully stopped and detained Defendant; and (2) reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that the justice court violated Defendant's right to confrontation when it allowed Defendant to testify via two-way video. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court sentencing Plaintiff to pay restitution to the Montana State Fund (MSF) for benefits it paid to a sergeant from the Gallatin County Detention Center related to an on-the-job injury, holding that the district court failed to appropriately apply Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-246 to conclude it would otherwise be unjust to require Defendant to pay the restitution imposed.Defendant was charged with felony assault on a peace officer for her actions in striking the sergeant after the sergeant requested that Defendant sit down while waiting for an initial appearance in court. Defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault. In sentencing Defendant, the district court concluded that MSF qualified as a victim and was thus entitled to restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded the MSF was an insurer victim entitled to restitution for pecuniary loss; and (2) erred by failing to adjust or otherwise waive payment by Defendant of the restitution ordered. View "State v. Lodahl" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress his text message conversation with an undercover federal agent and to dismiss the charge of patronizing prostitution, holding that the district court did not err.From his cell phone, Defendant responded to an ad placed in a warrantless internet sting operation. Thereafter, Defendant engaged in a text message conversation with "Lily," an undercover law enforcement officer. Defendant was subsequently charged with patronizing prostitution, a misdemeanor. Defendant filed a motion to suppress his text conversation with "Lily" and for dismissal of the case due to a lack of evidence. The district court denied the motions, and Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the warrantless use of a cloaked law enforcement officer under a fake internet advertisement for sexual services and the responsive text message conversation did not intrude upon an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore did not effect a constitutional search in violation of Defendant's right to privacy under Mont. Const. art. II, 10-11. View "State v. Staker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of the sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl and upheld the constitutionality of his sentence requiring lifetime GPS monitoring, holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred to the extent it admitted the victim's taped forensic interview as a prior consistent statement, but there was not a reasonable possibility that the forensic interview contributed to Defendant's conviction; (2) Defendant did not sustain his burden to demonstrate that the prosecutor's closing arguments justified reversal of his conviction for plain error; and (3) the requirement for GPS monitoring imposed by Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(4)(b) is not facially unconstitutional under either the Montana or the United States Constitutions. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the count of negligent vehicular assault, a misdemeanor, holding that the district court erred in failing to dismiss the negligent vehicular assault count upon the close of the State's case-in-chief.Defendant was charged with four counts. At issue on appeal was Count III, negligent vehicular assault. Defendant asked the district court to dismiss the count for insufficient evidence. The court denied the motion to dismiss. Defendant was then convicted of Count III and other counts. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss Count III, holding that the district court (1) erred in admitting hearsay evidence from the alleged victim to the investigating officer to prove an element of negligent vehicular assault; and (2) erred in refusing to dismiss Count III at the close of the State's case. View "State v. Butler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony possession of dangerous drug (methamphetamine), holding that the district court did not err by prohibiting Defendant's examination of the State's crime lab witness about the involvement of a discharged crime lab employee with the drug evidence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by prohibiting him from cross-examining the crime lab witness about the discharged crime lab employee's prior testing and the need for retesting. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that where Defendant's trial request was premised upon speculation about contamination, the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring further inquiry. View "State v. Brasda" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to provide a specific unanimity jury instruction; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion or prejudice Defendant's substantial rights in declining to instruct the jury that a witness is presumed to speak the truth; and (3) any potential misconduct by the prosecutor in crossing into the realm of explicit comments regarding witness credibility did not implicate a potential miscarriage of justice, breach of fundamental fairness, or compromise of the integrity of the judicial process. View "State v. Wells" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's conviction, entered after a second trial, for sexual intercourse without consent and bail jumping, holding that the district court abused its discretion in declaring and mistrial and erred in concluding that double jeopardy did not bar Defendant's retrial.Defendant was originally charged with incest and a jury was impaneled. Nearing the conclusion of the State's case the court reporter had either a heart attack or a stroke and was taken to the hospital. The court declared a mistrial, and a retrial was scheduled. Before the second trial, the State amended its charge to correct a deficiency in the original charging documents. Defendant was subsequently convicted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant's subsequent prosecution for sexual intercourse without consent and bail jumping for the same incident as his first prosecution was barred by the United States and Montana Constitutions protections against double jeopardy; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial. View "State v. Newrobe" on Justia Law