Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony theft by possession of stolen property and four misdemeanor, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court acted within its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for mistrial after two separate references to Defendant's "jail" status were made by State witnesses; (2) the district court did not err in declining to give a jury instruction on unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as a lesser-included offense of the charged theft by possession of stolen property; and (3) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims would more appropriately be addressed through a petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. Denny" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for three felony counts of privacy in communications, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213(1)(a), holding that there were no prejudicial errors in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the Privacy in Communications statute, Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213(1)(a), is not facially overbroad, nor does it constitute a content-based restriction on speech in violation of the "freedom of speech" clauses of the Montana and United States Constitutions; (2) the district court correctly interpreted the Privacy in Communications statute; (3) there was insufficient evidence to conclude that there was jurisdiction when the threatening communication was made to a person located outside of Montana; and (4) the district court fully and fairly instructed the jury in accordance with the charges and evidence presented. View "State v. Lamoureux" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the district court lifting its stay of execution of Defendant's sentence during his appeal and re-imposing the sentence, holding that the district court lacked the authority to impose the sentence after the State's delay in seeking to execute the sentence.The district court convicted Defendant for a first offense driving under the influence (DUI) conviction and sentenced him to six months with all but twenty-four hours suspended. The court stayed execution of the sentencing during Defendant's appeal. When Defendant's conviction was affirmed, the district court issued notice of remittitur to the parties. Eight months later, the State moved to lift the stay and require Defendant to serve his sentence. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's sentence expired before the State sought to enforce its terms and conditions, and therefore, the State could no longer execute the terms of the sentence; and (2) the district court correctly convicted Defendant of DUI. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the sentence imposed on Defendant after she was convicted for criminal possession of dangerous drugs (CPDD) and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia (CPDP), holding that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Defendant.The district court sentenced Defendant to four years with the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC), all for years suspended for the CPDD conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by sentencing her to a suspended sentence after determining that the State presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption in favor of a deferred sentence under Mont. Code Ann. 49-9-102(4). The Supreme Court agreed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court erred by sentencing Defendant to a four-year suspended sentence instead of deferring imposition of sentence. View "State v. Doubek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for writ of supervisory control reversing an order of the Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court denying Petitioner's motion to substitute the presiding judge, the Honorable Deborah Kim Christopher, in the underlying matter, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to the writ.Petitioner was the defendant in the underlying matter. The district court denied Petitioner's motion for substitution of judge, concluding that it was not timely filed in accordance with the statutory filing fee requirement set out in Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-804(3). The Supreme Court agreed with the district court that Petitioner did not timely file her substitution motion in accordance with the statutory filing fee requirement and therefore declined to exercise supervisory control under the circumstances in this case. View "Lesage v. Twentieth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for sexual intercourse without consent (SIWOC) and his sentence of seventy-five years' imprisonment, with twenty-five years suspended, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the district court erred by allowing the presentation of combined expert and lay testimony without providing a cautionary instruction or notice to counsel, (2) the court violated his due process rights by failing to exclude the prosecutor from a hearing regarding defense counsel's representation; and (3) his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) plain error review was not warranted for either issue one or issue two; and (2) Defendant failed to establish his ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law