Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for deliberate homicide, holding that the district court violated Defendant’s right to be present but that Defendant failed to demonstrate that the error was prejudicial.On appeal, Defendant argued that he was not included in several sidebars and in-chambers discussions during his trial and that his right of presence was violated twenty-three times. The Supreme Court held (1) the record supported Defendant’s assertion that he was not present in eight instances, but Defendant did not establish plain error in his exclusion from conferences; (2) because the burden was on Defendant to ensure the preservation of an adequate record for appeal, the district court did not err by failing to make a record of the various conferences that occurred during Defendant’s trial; (3) Defendant failed to rebut the State’s position that a violation of the public’s right to know cannot serve as a basis for overturning a criminal conviction; (4) the court did not abuse its discretion by allowing two of the State’s law enforcement witnesses to testify multiple times on direct examination; and (5) cumulative error did not warrant a new trial. View "State v. Hatfield" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court affirming the order of the Missoula Municipal Court’s denying Defendant’s motion to strike a twenty-five-dollar surcharge to fund the city attorney’s office after she pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct, holding that the Municipal Court exceeded its statutory authority by imposing the surcharge.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that because the Municipal Court’s written sentencing order included a surcharge that imposed a greater burden on Appellant than what Montana statutes allow for an offense made criminal by state law, the surcharge portion of the sentence was illegal. The Supreme Court remanded the matter with instructions that the Municipal Court strike the surcharge. View "City of Missoula v. Franklin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of stalking Thresa Goldberg and sentencing Defendant to five years in prison with two years suspended but instructed the court to correct its written judgment regarding the amount of restitution to be paid by Defendant.A jury convicted Defendant of stalking and the district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment and $42,798.90 in restitution. The Supreme Court held (1) although Defendant could not see Goldberg during her testimony, Defendant’s trial satisfied the elements of confrontation and did not violate his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Mont. Const. art. II, 24; and (2) the district court’s written judgment requiring Defendant to pay $47,798.90 in restitution was incorrect and should be corrected to match the amount of $42,262.06 in restitution included in the restitution order. View "State v. Weik" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for felony possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor possession of marijuana possession but reversed his sentence, holding that trial counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced Defendant during sentencing.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant’s contention that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress evidence found during a search incident to arrest because Defendant’s initial arrest was illegal was not reviewable on direct appeal; (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by incorrectly advising the district court that it had no authority to suspend or defer Defendant’s sentence; and (3) the district court improperly imposed multiple court information technology user surcharges in Defendant’s sentence. The Court remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing. View "State v. Larsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the judgment and sentence of the district court convicting Defendant of three counts of felony assault with a weapon and two counts of felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs and sentencing him to thirty years’ imprisonment, holding that the district court violated Defendant’s right to avoid double jeopardy.The drug possession charges for which Defendant was convicted involved possession of methamphetamine and possession of Lorazepam. During trial and after the State rested, the district court dismissed the Lorazepam charge. The jury found Defendant guilty of all charges, including possession of Lorazepam. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded for dismissal of the Lorazepam drug possession drug and vacation of the sentence imposed thereon, holding (1) Defendant’s right to be free of double jeopardy was violated because he was convicted of an offense of which he had already been acquitted; (2) the district court did not err in maintaining Defendant’s appointed legal counsel to represent him; and (3) the specified conditions and surcharges of the judgement must be stricken and amended to conform the written judgment with the court’s oral pronouncement and Montana law. View "State v. Barrows" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and sentences imposed for three felony counts, holding that the district court erred in ordering certain restitution and that the court’s written judgment did not conform to its oral pronouncement of sentence.Defendant pled guilty to attempted burglary and two counts of burglary. The district court awarded restitution to several individuals and entities, including Amusement Services and Payment Alliance. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred imposing the restitution award to Amusement Services and Payment Alliance because the losses were not supported by affidavit or testimony of the actual victims; (2) the district court’s written judgment did not reflect its oral pronouncement of sentence; and (3) the matter must be remand for the district court to impose only one technology fee rather than a fee per count. View "State v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court pursuant to a jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of sexual intercourse without consent, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault, holding that the district court did not err in its judgment.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err under the circumstances in denying Defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury regarding the aggravated assault count of the amended information; and (3) the restitution amount imposed by the district court was not clearly erroneous, and the court’s legal conclusion requiring Defendant to pay restitution was correct. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court clarified in this case its jurisprudence regarding jurisdiction and venue in criminal cases, holding (1) a defendant waives his or her right to object to the county in which a charge is filed if he or she fails to object before the first witness is sworn at trial; and (2) the prosecution must prove proper jurisdiction at trial.The Supreme Court reversed one of Defendant’s convictions for partner or family member assault (PFMA) and affirmed his second PFMA conviction, holding (1) Defendant waived his venue objection because he did not object before his trial began to the county in which the PFMA charges were filed; but (2) the prosecution failed to present any evidence regarding where the second PFMA charge occurred and therefore did not meet its burden of proving jurisdiction. View "City of Helena v. Frankforter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, rendered after a jury trial, convicting Defendant of one count of sexual intercourse without consent. In affirming, the Court held (1) the district court did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial when it allowed the victim’s mother to provide testimony about Defendant’s prior assault against the victim’s brother; and (2) the district court did not commit plain error when it sent the victim’s forensic interview video into the jury room during deliberations, and trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. View "State v. Clemans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for attempted deliberate homicide and aggravated assault, holding (1) the district court erred by instructing the jury using conduct-based definitions of purposely and knowingly, but the error was harmless; and (2) the district court did not err by determining that Defendant had not proven that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant’s substantial rights were not affected by the district court’s error in instructing the jury on the definitions of knowingly and purposely, and therefore, reversal was not required; and (2) there was no Brady violation because had the evidence challenged by Defendant been disclosed, there was no reasonable probability the outcome would have been different. View "State v. Ilk" on Justia Law