Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant for theft of property exceeding $1,500 in value, holding that the district court committed harmless error in allowing a State witness to appear by two-way video at trial.Before trial, the State moved the district court to allow the witness to testify by two-way video, arguing that transporting a witness, whose testimony was expected to last only several minutes, almost 500 miles would be overly burdensome and costly. The district court granted the motion. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court violated his right to confront witnesses against him by allowing the witness to appear by two-way video at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the court made no finding establishing an important public policy reason for the video testimony apart from judicial economy, allowing the witness to testify by video violated Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation; but (2) the State met its burden to show that the error was harmless. View "State v. Martell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for assault on a peace officer, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for mistrial based upon a prosecutor's comment made during opening statement and a prosecution witness's remark about Defendant's prior prison incarceration.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on two alleged incidents of prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the prosecutor's improper actions in this case did not prejudicially affect Defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial; and (2) therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial. View "State v. Erickson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's sentence of five years' imprisonment with two years suspended and fees and fines totaling $5560, as well as an order to pay imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment costs "if financially able," holding that the district court improperly failed to inquire into Defendant's ability to pay the fines, fees, and surcharges ordered.Defendant pled guilty to felony operation of a noncommercial vehicle by a person with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-406 and -731. Defendant challenged his sentence on appeal, arguing that the imposition of the financial costs violates statutes and the Court's precedents requiring district court findings about ability to pay. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) acted within its discretion to condition payment of imprisonment, probation, and treatment costs on a later determination of Defendant's ability to pay; (2) acted legally in imposing the mandatory $5000 fine; but (3) did not make the requisite inquiry into Defendant's ability to pay the $560 in fees and surcharges. View "State v. Yeaton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of deliberate homicide with a weapons enhancement, holding that there were no grounds upon which to reverse Defendant's conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in its opening and closing statement, resulting in plain error, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in several respects. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the prosecutor's challenged statements were proper; and (2) Defendant failed to establish that trial counsel provided record-based ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of Defendant's constitutional rights. View "State v. Polak" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of aggravated burglary, criminal trespass to property, and criminal possession of dangerous drugs, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's admission of flight evidence and its jury instructions on the mental state elements of the charged offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that the admission of the flight evidence prejudiced him or violated his right to a fair trial; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate plain error in the district court's mental state instructions. View "State v. Strizich" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed a portion of the restitution ordered in the judgment and sentence from the district court, holding that the district court erred when it ordered Defendant to pay the full restitution requested by a victim without accounting for statutory witness fees and expenses billable to the county.Defendant pleaded guilty to negligent homicide pursuant to an Alford plea. The State requested $6,795 in restitution for the father of the deceased victim, who was subpoenaed by the State, and the district court ordered Defendant to pay the full amount requested. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in including witness fees and expenses in the restitution order because the county was statutorily obligated to pay those fees and expenses. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand was required for further fact-finding to determine whether the ordered restitution included witness fees and expenses the county was responsible to pay Defendant under Mont. Code Ann. 46-15-116 and 26-2-501. View "State v. Lamb" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of partner or family member assault (PFMA), holding that the district court did not err by permitting Defendant's ex-girlfriend to testify and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.Defendant was charged with two counts of PFMA, both misdemeanors, and one count of strangulation of partner or family member, a felony. Defendant was found guilty of the second count of PFMA and was acquitted of the strangulation offense. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the State violated Mont. Code Ann. 46-15-322 and -327 by not disclosing his ex-girlfriend as a witness before trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the admission of the ex-girlfriend's testimony on a prior strangulation was error, but the error was harmless; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's conviction for the second count of PFMA. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the district court did not otherwise err.Defendant was convicted of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs and endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant appealed his drug offense conviction, arguing that insufficient evidence supported the conviction and that the district court deprived him of his right of allocution during his sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant's drug conviction; and (2) Defendant failed to preserve the allocution issue. View "State v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's petition to expunge or predesignate as a civil infraction his felony conviction of criminal possession of dangerous drugs, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's petition.Defendant pled guilty to possessing over sixty grams of marijuana. After voters passed the Montana Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MMRTA), now codified as Title 16, chapter 12, MCA, Defendant petitioned for expungement or redesignation of his marijuana conviction. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Defendant was not eligible for expungement or redesignation because the MMRTA does not permit the marijuana-related conduct for which Defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, on its face, Defendant's conviction did not qualify for expungement or redesignation under the MMRTA. View "Maier v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the municipal court revoking Defendant's deferred sentence and imposing a six-month suspended sentence, holding that the municipal court did not err or abuse its discretion.When he violated an order of protection Defendant violated a condition of his deferred six-month sentence for misdemeanor sexual assault. The district court affirmed the municipal court's decision revoking Defendant's deferred sentence and imposing a suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the municipal court (1) correctly applied the law when it revoked Defendant's sentence; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Defendant's six-month deferred sentence and imposed a six-month suspended sentence. View "City of Missoula v. Sadiku" on Justia Law