Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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