Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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