Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of eight counts of sexual intercourse without consent, three counts of felony sexual assault, three counts of sexual abuse of children, and two counts of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs. Defendant was sentenced to a cumulative total of five consecutive life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of prior acts under Mont. R. Evid. 404(b) after balancing its prejudicial effect against its probative value; and (2) to the extent the district court erred in applying Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-511(2), Montana’s Rape Shield Law, the error was harmless. View "State v. Daffin" on Justia Law

After she was arrested for driving under the influence, Defendant was transported to the hospital for a blood draw. When her handcuffs were removed to facilitate the blood draw, Defendant fled. The State charged Defendant with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence based on Defendant’s leaving the hospital and preventing a blood sample from being drawn. Defendant moved to dismiss the tampering charge, arguing that blood is not evidence until it is removed from the body. The district court denied Defendant’s motion. The jury then found Defendant guilty. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that State v. Peplow is dispositive in this case and that physical evidence of Defendant’s alcohol content is limited to that which is collected for analysis of her blood or breath. View "State v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Joseph Forsythe was charged with partner/family member assault (PFMA) for his physical altercation with his wife, Giana. While confined and under a no contact order, Forsythe sent letters to Giana telling her to provide false testimony regarding the incident. After Giana gave the letters to the authorities, the State charged Forsythe with felony tampering with a witness. Forsythe was found guilty of both PFMA and tampering. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the district court (1) did not err in determining that the letters Forsythe sent to Giana were not protected by spousal privilege; (2) erred in allowing a lay witness to testify regarding handwriting samples, but the error was harmless; and (3) imposed an illegal sentence by ordering Forsythe to pay a $20 information technology surcharge rather than a $10 surcharge as authorized by statute. View "State v. Forsythe" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of negligent endangerment, leaving the scene of an injury accident, and failing to give notice of an accident. The municipal court included six conditions to Defendant’s suspended sentence for negligent endangerment, four of which pertained to alcohol use. Defendant appealed, arguing that the municipal court did not establish a sufficient nexus between his criminal history and the conditions imposed on his sentence that related to alcohol. The district court upheld the municipal court’s alcohol-related conditions on Defendant’s sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the municipal court’s alcohol-related conditions were both legal and reasonable and had a sufficient nexus to Defendant’s history of alcohol abuse and reckless driving. View "City of Billings v. Barth" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to DUI per se. Defendant appealed the municipal court’s denial of her motion to suppress blood test results on the ground that, by remaining silent, she did not voluntarily consent to the blood test. The district court affirmed, ruling that Defendant consented to the blood draw pursuant to Montana’s implied consent law, Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-402(1), and that the municipal court did not err by finding that she did not withdraw that consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s passive compliance to the blood test was insufficient to constitute a withdrawal of her implied consent; and (2) therefore, the municipal court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress her blood test results. View "City of Great Falls v. Allderdice" on Justia Law

After responding to a 911 call, a police officer spoke to Bridge Rogers, who told the officer that Rick Strobel, her husband, hit her in the face and tried to force her into a pickup truck. The City of Helena charged Strobel with partner or family member assault (PFMA). At trial, Rogers recanted her prior statement to the police. The municipal court denied Strobel’s motion to dismiss the charges for insufficient evidence and convicted him. The district court affirmed the conviction, concluding that sufficient evidence existed to support a finding that Strobel was guilty of PFMA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the municipal court reasonably could have found every element of the crime of PFMA beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the district court did not err in affirming Strobel’s conviction. View "City of Helena v. Strobel" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with sexual abuse of children and sexual assault. The jury found Defendant guilty of sexual abuse of children but hung on the charge of sexual assault. At a second trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of the sexual assault charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by denying Defendant’s requests for substitution of counsel; (2) did not violate Defendant’s confrontation rights by excluding evidence pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-511(2); (3) did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Juror No. 5 in the second trial; and (4) properly instructed the jury when it utilized the pattern unanimity instruction from the Montana Pattern Jury Instructions. View "State v. Aguado" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to felony possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute, felony possession of dangerous drugs, and misdemeanor possession of dangerous drugs. The district court sentenced Defendant to 100 years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court violated his right to due process by impermissibly considering an unproved allegation of rape in making its sentencing decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jailhouse rape allegation did not form the basis for Defendant’s sentence, and therefore, Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that the court premised its sentencing decision on “materially inaccurate or prejudicial” information. View "State v. Sherman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of deliberate homicide under the felony murder rule. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole. The district court also sentenced Defendant to pay costs of defense, prosecution, and jury selection. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence to pay costs, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior acts under Mont. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403; but (2) the district court erred in sentencing Defendant to pay costs of assigned defense, prosecution, and jury selection based on purely speculative information about his ability to pay. View "State v. Madplume" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with deliberate homicide in the death of her infant daughter. Defendant moved to suppress the results of a police interrogation, asserting that her admissions that she had shaken her daughter were not voluntary. The district court denied the motion to suppress. A jury found Defendant not guilty of deliberate homicide but guilty of felony assault on a minor. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) based upon the totality of the circumstances, the district court erred by concluding that the interrogation was not unduly coercive or manipulative and by concluding that Defendant was “fully cognizant” of her situation; and (2) therefore, the State failed to meet its burden of proving that Defendant’s admissions were voluntary, and the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress. View "State v. Eskew" on Justia Law