Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for five years and imposing financial obligations on Defendant, including public defender fees, supervision fees, presentence investigation report fees and surcharges.Defendant pled guilty to felony possession of dangerous drugs. The district court sentenced Defendant as a persistent felony offender and prescribed the minimum sentence thereunder. Defendant appealed his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court appropriately considered alternatives to imprisonment; and (2) Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were more appropriate for presentation through a petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. Hinshaw" on Justia Law

The district court erred by imposing a restriction upon Defendant’s release from incarceration while committing him to the Department of Corrections (DOC).Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted prostitution. The district court committed Defendant to the DOC and ordered that he could not be released from incarceration until he had completed sexual offender treatment. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that, under statute, a sentence cannot include both a placement to the DOC while also imposing incarceration by way of a restriction on release until the defendant completes sex offender treatment. View "State v. Day" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for entrapment as a matter of law.Defendant was charged with felony attempted prostitution. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the affirmative defense of entrapment. The district court denied the motion to dismiss as a matter of law, concluding that the record contained conflicting facts as to the origination of criminal intent and Defendant’s state of mind that made submitting the issue of entrapment to a jury proper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the affirmative defense of entrapment as a matter of law because conflicting facts existed as to whether Defendant had the requisite intent to commit the criminal act. View "State v. Lindquist" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s imposition of a condition on Defendant’s suspended sentence that Defendant pay the costs of his imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment “if financially able.”Defendant pleaded no contest to felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and was committed to the Department of Corrections for thirteen months, with an additional five years suspended. On appeal, Defendant challenged the imposition of the condition on his suspended sentence that he pay the costs of his imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment on the ground that the district court failed to determine his ability to pay these costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court made the proper determination of Defendant’s ability to pay the costs that the district court imposed, and Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-731(4)(b) required no more than what the district court did. View "State v. Daricek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s imposition of a condition on Defendant’s suspended sentence that Defendant pay the costs of his imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment “if financially able.”Defendant pleaded no contest to felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and was committed to the Department of Corrections for thirteen months, with an additional five years suspended. On appeal, Defendant challenged the imposition of the condition on his suspended sentence that he pay the costs of his imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment on the ground that the district court failed to determine his ability to pay these costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court made the proper determination of Defendant’s ability to pay the costs that the district court imposed, and Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-731(4)(b) required no more than what the district court did. View "State v. Daricek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for operating a noncommercial vehicle with alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more (DUI per se) but reversed the district court’s order imposing the cost of legal counsel on Defendant. The court held (1) Defendant’s right to due process was not violated by a jury instruction that instructed the jurors, when choosing between two competing interpretations of circumstances evidence, to choose whichever interpretation was the “most reasonable”; but (2) the district court erred in imposing costs of legal counsel on Defendant given Defendant’s limited fixed income and disability status. View "State v. Iverson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense, and the sentence imposed in connection with the offense of thirteen months with the Department of Corrections for placement in a residential alcohol treatment program and four years suspended to be served consecutively. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his for-cause challenge to a prospective juror. In affirming, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s for-cause challenge of the prospective juror. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence at trial that his wages were being garnished and an order requiring Defendant to pay nearly $65,000 in restitution plus statutory and administration fees. The court held (1) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Defendant’s wage garnishment was admissible evidence under Mont. R. Evid. 404(b); and (3) there was substantial evidence to support the district court’s restitution order. View "State v. Ailer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence at trial that his wages were being garnished and an order requiring Defendant to pay nearly $65,000 in restitution plus statutory and administration fees. The court held (1) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Defendant’s wage garnishment was admissible evidence under Mont. R. Evid. 404(b); and (3) there was substantial evidence to support the district court’s restitution order. View "State v. Ailer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of felony aggravated assault, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of a doctor who examined the victim.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony aggravated assault for strangling Michelle Allen, his domestic partner. During trial, over Defendant’s objection, the district court admitted testimony from an emergency room physician about Allen’s statements during her examination after the attack. On appeal, Defendant argued that the doctor’s testimony violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause and was not admissible under the under the hearsay exception for information related to medical examinations under Mont. R. Evid. 803(4). The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the doctor’s testimony concerning the victim’s out-of-court statements did not violate Defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights; and (2) the doctor’s testimony met the Rule 803(4) hearsay exception as a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. View "State v. Porter" on Justia Law