Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's three convictions for sexual abuse of children (possession of child pornography), holding that Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-410(2)(a) does not prohibit multiple convictions for possession of child pornography when the images were discovered on a single day on a single device.Defendant admitted to downloading several photos and videos depicting child pornography and pled guilty to four counts, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss as to three of the counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly concluded that Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(e) allows conviction for each image of child pornography that Defendant possessed. View "State v. Felde" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that Mother's attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel.At issue was whether counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance when he stipulated to the request of the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division that no reunification services be provided to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's termination of Mother's parental rights, holding (1) Mother was not prejudiced by any alleged failure on her attorney's part to object to the Department's request not to provide reunification services; (2) the district court had grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights and made the findings necessary to support termination; and (3) the district court did not err in finding that termination would be in the children's best interests. View "In re D.A.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the City of Missoula Municipal Court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss a petition to revoke sentence, holding that the district court correctly affirmed the municipal court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence.In 2017, the City filed a petition to revoke Appellant's sentence for Appellant's compliance violations. Appellant moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the amendment to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-2013 removed the municipal court's authority to revoke suspended sentences for compliance violations without first showing the probation office had exhausted all statutory alternatives. The municipal court denied the motion and revoked and reimposed Appellant's twelve-month suspended sentence, concluding that the 2017 changes to the statute do not apply to misdemeanors. The district court affirmed, holding (1) the 2017 amendments to section 46-18-2013 certain only to revocation of felony probation and parole; and (2) the municipal court acted within its authority when it revoked Appellant's suspended sentence for violating its terms and conditions. View "City of Missoula v. Pope" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court vacating its prior order to expunge Justin Dickey's misdemeanor records, holding that the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings brought under the Misdemeanor Expungement Clarification Act and that the district court properly determined that venue was not proper under Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-1105.Dickey filed a petition for expungement of his misdemeanor criminal records, referred only to "misdemeanor criminal record(s)" generally. The district court granted the petition. On reconsideration, the district court vacated its prior expungement order and dismissed the matter, determining that venue was improper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to a proceeding brought under the Expungement Act; and (2) the district court did not err in determining that Dickey's prior speeding violation in Kalispell was insufficient to establish proper venue in the Eleventh Judicial District for expungement of misdemeanors under section 46-18-1105. View "In re Dickey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict of the district court following Defendant's conviction of incest against his ten-year-old stepdaughter, holding that the district court erred when it granted the State's motion in limine excluding the testimony of Defendant's expert witness regarding general information of false reports in child sexual abuse cases.In granting the State's motion in limine, the district court deemed Defendant's expert witness unqualified to testify under State v. Scheffelman, 820 P.2d 1293 (Mont. 1991), which allows a party to elicit expert testimony that directly comments on an alleged victim's credibility if the expert satisfies certain criteria. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by applying the Scheffelman exception criteria to exclude the expert witness's testimony, and the error was not harmless. View "State v. Reams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the sentence and financial assessments imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense, holding that the district court erred by assessing a $500 surcharge in compliance with Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-236(1)(b).The district court imposed the statutory minimum fine of $5,000 for felony DUI and sentenced him to a thirteen-month commitment to the Department of Corrections, followed by a three-year suspended sentence subject to certain terms and conditions. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his sentencing objections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by assessing the $5,000 fine; (2) did not err by assessing the cost of imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-731(4)(b); (3) did not err by assessing a $100 fine pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-232(1); but (4) erred by assessing the $500 surcharge without considering Defendant's ability to pay. View "State v. Ingram" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court that the Montana Board of Pardons and Parole did not violate Appellant's statutory or constitutional rights in denying Appellant's parole request, holding that the district court did not err.Appellant sought judicial review of the Board's decision, claiming that the Board denied him his right to know, right to participate, or right to due process when it denied him parole without first furnishing him a copy of documents on which the Board relied in making its decision. Appellant further argued that the Board unlawfully relied on a guideline without having adopted it as an administrative rule pursuant to the Montana Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the Board. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where the guideline was not the reason for the Board's decision, Appellant could not demonstrated the likelihood of a different outcome; and (2) the Board did not violate Appellant's right to know, right to participate, or due process rights. View "Miller v. Montana Board of Pardons & Parole" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to find Defendant's concerns of ineffective assistance of counsel "seemingly substantial" or by declining to grant a trial continuance.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by (1) denying his request for a continuance of the jury trial, and (2) failing to open a formal inquiry into the effectiveness of counsel following Defendant's pretrial expressions of lack of confidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to grant Defendant's request for a continuance before trial; and (2) even if Defendant's lack of confidence did constitute a request for substitute counsel, the district court's response was an adequate initial inquiry to determine whether Defendant's concerns were "seemingly substantial." View "State v. Dillingham" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of vehicular homicide while under the influence, holding that Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-411 does not violate either the substantive due process or equal protection guarantees of the state and federal constitutions.Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that section 61-8-411 was facially unconstitutional as a violation of his substantive due process rights. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. On appeal, Defendant argued that the legislature could have made a more scientifically based policy choice to keep drivers impaired by THC off the road and that the statute unconstitutionally creates classifications. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-411 is rationally related to the government's compelling interest in keeping drug-impaired drivers off the road. View "State v. Jensen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of solicitation of witness tampering and sentencing him to prison for ten years with four years suspended, holding that the district court made numerous errors during trial amounting to cumulative error requiring reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that Defendant's conviction resulted, at least in part, from the prejudice of the irrelevant and extrinsic bad acts evidence erroneously admitted from void dire through the entire evidentiary presentation and that Defendant did not receive a fair trial as a result of the district court's erroneous rulings, mandating reversal of Defendant's conviction under the doctrine of cumulative error. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law