Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An employee of Lucky Lil’s Casino in Missoula, Montana, called 911 after failing to wake a man, McClellan, who was slumped over in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle. Officer Champa responded and, after waking McClellan, observed signs suggesting impairment. McClellan could not produce identification, and a search revealed a broken methamphetamine pipe. Further investigation confirmed McClellan’s driver’s license was suspended, and a subsequent search of the vehicle uncovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. McClellan was charged with Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs with Intent to Distribute.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, denied McClellan’s motion to suppress the evidence, ruling that the officer had particularized suspicion to expand the welfare check into an investigatory stop. McClellan pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case, focusing on whether the District Court erred in concluding that the officer had particularized suspicion to expand the welfare check into an investigatory stop. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the officer’s actions were justified under the community caretaker doctrine and that particularized suspicion arose during the interaction, allowing the investigatory stop to proceed lawfully. The court found that the officer’s observations and McClellan’s behavior provided sufficient grounds for the investigatory stop and subsequent search. View "State v. McClellan" on Justia Law

On January 1, 2019, Missoula police were surveilling suspected illegal drug activity outside a casino. Officers observed two vehicles, a Honda and a Volkswagen, leave the casino together and head to a nearby grocery store parking lot. Officer Griffith parked his patrol car behind the Honda, where Catherine Marie Rymal was a passenger. Without activating his lights or siren, Griffith approached the Honda and asked Rymal not to dig around in the car. Rymal explained she was looking for her dog’s leash. Griffith then asked if he could talk to her and inquired about their activities at the casino. Rymal mentioned they were waiting for a friend and had been gambling. Griffith asked for her ID, and Rymal disclosed she might have a warrant for a speeding ticket.The Montana Fourth Judicial District Court denied Rymal’s motion to suppress the drug evidence found during a subsequent search, ruling that her interaction with Officer Griffith was consensual and did not constitute an unlawful seizure. The court found that Rymal’s disclosure of her possible warrant was voluntary and provided reasonable suspicion for her detention.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Rymal was not seized at any point before she voluntarily disclosed her possible warrant status. The interaction between Rymal and Officer Griffith was deemed consensual, and Griffith’s conduct did not amount to a show of authority that would make a reasonable person feel they were not free to leave. Therefore, the evidence obtained was not the result of an unlawful seizure, and the motion to suppress was correctly denied. View "State v. Rymal" on Justia Law

David Stanley was convicted in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, for felony criminal possession of methamphetamine. Stanley appealed, arguing that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress drug evidence found during a post-arrest jail intake search. The key issue was whether the police had the requisite particularized suspicion to justify the investigative stop that led to Stanley's arrest and the subsequent discovery of the drugs.In the lower court, the District Court found that the police lacked particularized suspicion to justify the stop. However, it ruled that the "attenuation doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule applied, meaning the drug evidence did not need to be suppressed despite the initial unlawful stop. Stanley then pled guilty under a plea agreement that reserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the police had a reasonable particularized suspicion to stop Stanley. The court noted that the police received an anonymous tip about a fugitive, Daniel Sobrepena, who was reportedly wearing a distinctive red curly wig to avoid arrest. When Officer Ahmann saw Stanley wearing a similar wig in the area described, it was reasonable to suspect he might be Sobrepena or have information about him. The court found that the initial stop and subsequent questioning were justified and conducted within a reasonable scope and duration.The Montana Supreme Court concluded that the District Court reached the correct result in denying the motion to suppress, albeit for different reasons. The court affirmed Stanley's conviction, holding that the investigative stop was lawful and the resulting drug evidence was admissible. View "State v. Stanley" on Justia Law

Laura Marie Obert, a former Broadwater County Commissioner, was investigated by the Montana Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) in 2015 for allegedly receiving unlawful overtime pay and potential ethics violations. In 2016, Obert entered a deferred prosecution agreement with the Assistant Attorney General, agreeing to repay the excess wages and abstain from voting on matters where she had a conflict of interest. In 2019, based on new allegations of violating the agreement, Obert was charged with felony theft and misdemeanor official misconduct. The district court dismissed these charges in 2021, finding Obert had complied with the agreement and there was insufficient evidence for the misconduct charge.Obert then sued the State of Montana and Broadwater County Attorney Cory Swanson, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, due process violations, and malicious prosecution. The First Judicial District Court dismissed her claims, leading to this appeal.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and made several determinations. It reversed the lower court's dismissal of Obert's breach of contract and good faith and fair dealing claims, holding that these claims were not time-barred and did not accrue until the criminal charges were dismissed. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Obert's bad faith claim, finding no special relationship existed between Obert and the State that would support such a claim. The court also upheld the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim, ruling that Swanson was protected by prosecutorial immunity as he acted within his statutory duties. Lastly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the due process claim, concluding that Obert's procedural due process rights were not violated as the State followed proper procedures in charging her and the district court provided an appropriate forum to address the alleged breach of the agreement. View "Obert v State" on Justia Law

In this case, Billy Lee Henderson appealed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his 2019 conviction for Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (SIWC). The conviction stemmed from a series of assaults on Jane Doe over five days in April 2018. Henderson was found guilty of multiple related offenses, including witness tampering and protective order violations. He was sentenced to 75 years in prison, with 25 years suspended.Henderson's petition for postconviction relief was based on newly discovered evidence, specifically Doe's recantation of her trial testimony. Doe had initially testified that Henderson forced her to have non-consensual sex, but later, in recorded conversations and an interview, she claimed the intercourse was consensual and that she had been pressured by authorities to testify otherwise. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, denied the petition, finding Doe's recantations inconsistent and lacking credibility, especially given Henderson's history of witness tampering.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the District Court applied the correct standards in assessing the newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the District Court did not err in its evidentiary assessment. The court emphasized that Doe's recantations were not sufficiently credible or weighty to warrant a new trial, especially in light of her inconsistent statements and the context of Henderson's attempts to influence her testimony. The Supreme Court concluded that the District Court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous. View "Henderson v. State" on Justia Law

Tanya Twoteeth was convicted by a jury in the First Judicial District Court of Montana for Tampering with Witnesses and Informants. The case arose from an investigation into car thefts, where Tanya's daughter, Desirae, was a suspect. Desirae's aunt, Roberta, initially reported seeing Desirae in a stolen vehicle. Before Desirae's trial, she made calls to Tanya, discussing concerns about Roberta's potential testimony. Tanya assured Desirae that she would speak to Roberta. Subsequently, Roberta changed her statement, claiming she did not see anyone in the car.The District Court admitted Roberta's initial statement to police as non-hearsay, over Tanya's objection. Tanya was charged with tampering based on the recorded calls and Roberta's changed testimony. Tanya moved to dismiss the case for insufficient evidence, but the District Court denied the motion, finding enough evidence for the jury to decide.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the District Court did not err in admitting Roberta's statement as non-hearsay, as it was used to show the trajectory of the investigation and not for the truth of the matter asserted. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Tanya's conviction. The recorded calls and the change in Roberta's testimony provided a reasonable basis for the jury to infer that Tanya had influenced Roberta. The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Twoteeth" on Justia Law

Wes Lee Whitaker was convicted by a jury of sexual intercourse without consent (SIWC), incest, and sexual assault. The case involved allegations that Whitaker sexually abused his stepdaughter, L.M., who was a young child at the time. The abuse was reported by L.M.'s mother, Jessica, after she observed suspicious behavior and L.M. disclosed inappropriate touching by Whitaker. L.M. provided detailed accounts of the abuse during a forensic interview and a medical examination, although she could not recall many details during the trial.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, presided over the trial. Whitaker raised several issues on appeal, including the admission of testimony via video from a federal prisoner, the admission of L.M.'s prior statements, and a claim of double jeopardy regarding his convictions for SIWC and sexual assault. The District Court allowed the video testimony due to COVID-19 concerns and admitted L.M.'s prior statements as inconsistent with her trial testimony.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court did not violate Whitaker's confrontation rights by allowing the video testimony, as the decision was justified by the pandemic and the witness's incarceration status. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting L.M.'s prior statements, as her inability to recall details at trial constituted a material inconsistency. However, the court agreed with Whitaker and the State that his convictions for SIWC and sexual assault violated double jeopardy, as they were based on the same act. Consequently, the court reversed the sexual assault conviction and remanded for entry of an amended judgment, while affirming the other convictions. View "State v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jose Frank Patina, was found guilty of five counts of Assault with a Weapon after a three-day jury trial. During the trial, Patina raised concerns about not receiving full discovery and issues with his counsel's performance, including the timing and substance of certain motions and his ability to view evidence. He requested a substitution of counsel, citing a lack of communication and trust in his attorney.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Yellowstone County conducted an initial inquiry into Patina's complaints. The court confirmed that Patina had been provided with all necessary discovery and that his counsel had acted appropriately regarding the motions and evidence. Despite Patina's general feelings of discomfort and unsupported concerns, the court found his complaints to be vague and unsubstantiated. The court denied his request for substitute counsel, stating that his grievances did not demonstrate a complete breakdown in communication that would warrant such a substitution.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the District Court had conducted an adequate initial inquiry into Patina's complaints and correctly determined that his grievances were not "seemingly substantial." The court emphasized that a defendant's right to substitute counsel arises only when there is a complete breakdown in communication that frustrates the purpose of effective assistance. Patina's complaints were found to be either misunderstandings or matters of trial strategy, which do not justify the substitution of counsel. The conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Patina" on Justia Law

The defendant, Michael Lee Marfuta, Jr., lived in a trailer park in Livingston, Montana, and worked there under an informal agreement. After the park was sold to a nonprofit corporation, Marfuta faced new employment requirements and was eventually served with an eviction notice for failing to pay rent. Marfuta responded with threatening emails, indicating he would resist eviction violently. On February 2, 2021, law enforcement attempted to serve an eviction notice, leading to a standoff where Marfuta fired multiple shots at officers. He was eventually arrested after a prolonged confrontation.The Sixth Judicial District Court of Park County initially charged Marfuta with several offenses, including Attempted Deliberate Homicide, but did not include a weapon enhancement. The State later amended the charges to include the weapon enhancement under § 46-18-221, MCA. Marfuta moved to dismiss the weapon enhancement, arguing the State did not properly seek pre-filing approval. The District Court denied the motion, stating it had granted leave to file the Amended Information, which included the weapon enhancement. The jury found Marfuta guilty of Attempted Deliberate Homicide and Assault on a Peace Officer, and the court sentenced him to 82 years in prison, including the weapon enhancement.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The Court held that the District Court properly denied Marfuta's motion to dismiss the weapon enhancement, as the State had provided sufficient probable cause and notice. The Court also found that the jury instructions on the mental state for Attempted Deliberate Homicide were adequate when considered as a whole. Additionally, the Court rejected Marfuta's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that his counsel's performance did not fall below the standard required by the Sixth Amendment. View "State v. Marfuta" on Justia Law

Johnathan Bertsch was charged with two counts of deliberate homicide and two counts of attempted deliberate homicide after shooting at a vehicle, killing one person and injuring two others, and subsequently shooting a highway patrol officer. He pleaded guilty to one count of deliberate homicide and three counts of attempted deliberate homicide. The State requested $34,728.14 in restitution based on payments made to the victims by Montana’s Crime Victim Compensation Program. Bertsch, who relied on Social Security payments and had not maintained employment, objected to the restitution due to his indigent status.The Fourth Judicial District Court sentenced Bertsch to four consecutive life terms without parole and imposed the requested restitution amount plus a 10% administrative fee. The court reasoned that any funds Bertsch earned through prison work should go towards restitution. Bertsch appealed the restitution order, arguing that it should be waived as unjust given his financial inability to pay.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the restitution statutes require courts to determine restitution amounts without considering an offender’s ability to pay. Bertsch did not adequately request a waiver or present sufficient evidence to show that restitution was unjust under § 46-18-246, MCA. The court found that a general objection based on indigence did not meet the burden of proof required to waive restitution. The court affirmed the District Court’s order, noting that Bertsch could petition for a waiver or adjustment of restitution if his circumstances changed. View "State v. Bertsch" on Justia Law