Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of felony sexual assault, holding that counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to an instruction that a person under the age of sixteen is incapable of consent as a matter of law because the age of consent for sexual assault is fourteen years old.During trial, the court instructed the jury, without differentiating between the charged offenses of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault, that a person under the age of sixteen is incapable of consent as a matter of law. The victim in this case was fourteen years old at the time of the alleged offense. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the instruction allowed the jury to convict Defendant solely on evidence of the victim's age, and had trial counsel offered and argued a separate sexual assault "without consent" instruction, the result may have been different. View "State v. Resh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted deliberate homicide, aggravated burglary, and tampering with or fabricating evidence, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant did not meet his burden to convince the Court that it was necessary to review the district court's note on the verdict form regarding alternative lesser included offenses under the plain error doctrine; (2) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of tampering with or fabricating evidence; and (3) Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Daniels" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant for felony sexual assault without consent, holding that the district court abused its discretion by not continuing the sentencing hearing.The district court was presented with Defendant's unopposed motion to continue the sentencing hearing to accommodate the schedule of a key, and only, witness. The district court denied the motion, noting only that the motion was Defendant's fourth motion to continue the sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing, holding that Defendant's request for a continuance was reasonable under the circumstances, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily in not granting Defendant's unopposed motion to continue the sentencing hearing. View "State v. Webber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying the petition filed by the Department of Public Health and Human Services to modify Kevin Capser's sentence, holding that the court's decision to deny the petition was an abuse of discretion.Capser, who suffered from schizophrenia, shot and killed his father. Capser was found guilty of deliberate homicide but that he suffered from a mental disease or disorder that rendered him unable to appreciate the criminality of his behavior or to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. Capser was Department of Public Health and Human Services for one hundred years with thirty years suspended, with an additional ten years for the use of a weapon. The forensic review board later concluded that Capser no longer represented a substantial risk of harm to himself or others. The Department then filed a petition for review of sentence. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Capser remained a danger to himself and others. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court's decision was based on a generalized apprehension that something unfortunate might occur in the future, and therefore, the denial of the petition was not within the court's discretion. View "In re DPHHS Petition Concerning Kevin J. Capser" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the municipal court's judgments of conviction on jury trial of misdemeanor criminal trespass, assault, resisting arrest, and obstructing a peace officer, holding that the municipal court's evidentiary rulings challenged on appeal were without error.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the municipal court erred in subjecting his asserted "substantial need" for the arresting officers' personnel files under Mont. Code Ann. 46-15-322(5) to balancing with their constitutional right to privacy, (2) the municipal court erred in excluding examining physician testimony regarding the nature and extent of injuries sustained by Defendant incident to arrest, and (3) insufficient evidence supported his obstructing a peace officer conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the municipal court correctly denied Defendant's request for discovery of the arresting officers' pre-incident personnel records; (2) the municipal court did not err in excluding Defendant's proffered physician testimony; and (3) the Court declines to review the sufficiency of the evidence for plain error. View "City of Bozeman v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of deliberate homicide, holding that Defendant was not entitled to his relief on his argument that defense counsel was ineffective.On appeal, Defendant argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by objecting to a jury instruction that accomplice testimony must be viewed with distrust and must be corroborated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record was not sufficiently developed to determine whether Defendant's objection was a reasonable tactical decision. Consequently, the Court concluded that Defendant must pursue his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a properly presented petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. Wittal" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court on remand issuing financial sanctions against the State for discovery abuse and denying Appellant's request for a new trial, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion with its chosen sanction for the State's discovery abuse.During his criminal trial, Defendant moved for a mistrial as a sanction for the State's failure to provide a certain video. The district court denied the motion, ruling that the State did not have to produce the video. The jury found Defendant guilty of assault with a weapon and driving while license suspended or revoked. On appeal, the State conceded that it wrongfully withheld the video from Defendant. The Supreme Court remanded to the district court to determine the appropriate sanction. On remand, the district court found that Defendant was not prejudiced by the State's discovery abuse and that no new trial was warranted. The court then issued a financial sanction against the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial due to a lack of prejudice and issue financial sanctions against the State. View "State v. Pope" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, tampering with a witness, and misdemeanor assault, holding that Defendant failed to identify any errors in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant's prior conduct under the transaction rule; (2) the prosecution did not commit misconduct by introducing racial slurs because the statements were relevant and admissible under the transaction rule to provide necessary context for jurors; and (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from Defendant's phone. View "State v. Haithcox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of deliberate homicide for the death of his wife, Kathryn, fifteen years earlier, holding that the district court abused its discretion in admitting a deceased forensic pathologist's opinion statements through an FBI agent who was present at the autopsy on Kathryn's body, holding that Defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him was violated.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant was not unconstitutionally prejudiced by the fifteen-year delay between Kathryn's death and the charge; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence in his case-in-chief to overcome Defendant's motion to dismiss the case for insufficient evidence; but (3) the district court abused its discretion in admitting the deceased pathologist's statements that bruises on Kathryn's neck were "troubling" because the State used the statements as an out-of-court substitute for the trial testimony of the deceased pathologist and Defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine or confront the accusation. The Court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Laird" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of negligent homicide, holding that Defendant's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to serve a subpoena upon or otherwise preserve the testimony of a crucial defense witness for trial.Defendant was convicted of negligent homicide and two counts of felony criminal endangerment. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment and imposed restitution to be paid to Justin Gallup and Tiffany Rowell. Defendant appealed the negligent homicide conviction and also asserted that the district court erred by failing to deduct the $50,000 paid by his insurance - $25,000 to both Gallup and Rowell - from each's restitution award. The Supreme Court reversed the negligent homicide conviction, holding (1) trial counsel was ineffective because there was no justifiable reason not to subpoena the crucial witness sufficiently in advance of trial to assure his attendance; and (2) the district court erred in failing to deduct funds paid by Defendant's insurance to Gallup and Powell from their restitution awards. View "State v. Santoro" on Justia Law