Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony assault with a weapon. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of justifiable force use of force. Specifically, Defendant argued that the instruction was inconsistent and contradictory to another instruction given on the issue of Defendant’s duty to retreat. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based upon all of the evidence Defendant and the State presented at trial, the district court properly instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of justifiable use of force. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with partner or family member assault (PFMA) for physically assaulting his girlfriend. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the PFMA charge, arguing that the statute under which he was charged violated his right to equal protection because it did not apply to persons in same-sex intimate relationships. The justice court denied the motion, concluding that the statute did not violate Defendant’s right to equal protection because it does not treat similarly-situated individuals unequally. The court then found Defendant guilty. The district court affirmed, concluding that the justice court correctly analyzed Defendant’s equal protection claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the former version of the statute under which Defendant was charged violated equal protection; (2) the unconstitutional provision was unnecessary for the integrity of the law, and severing that provision leaves the remainder of the statute complete in itself; and (3) therefore, Defendant was not entitled to dismissal of his PFMA charge. View "State v. Theeler" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts of theft and two counts of deceptive practices in the City Court of Red Lodge on March 26, 2014. The court ultimately set Defendant’s jury trial for October 31, 2014, nearly one month outside the six-month statutory speedy trial period. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss due to a violation of his statutory speedy trial right. The city court denied the motion, concluding that the speedy trial statute was inapplicable because Defendant had requested a new scheduling order. The court also found good cause. Defendant was subsequently found guilty of one count of deceptive practices. The district court affirmed the city court’s order. The Supreme Court affirmed the city court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that because Defendant moved to vacate the scheduling order, which included the trial date, he may not avail himself of the statutory protections afforded by Mont. Code Ann. 46-13-401(2). View "City of Red Lodge v. Pepper" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute and criminal possession of dangerous drugs/opiates. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle during a search pursuant to a search warrant, arguing that the police lacked particularized suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the stop of Defendant was supported by a particularized suspicion that Defendant’s tail light covers violated Mont. Code Ann. 61-9-204(5). View "State v. Massey" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-401. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of a blood test taken at Marcus Daly Memorial Hospital, conceding that he verbally consented to the blood test but arguing that he withdrew his consent by not signing a patient consent form at the hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his blood test, holding that the district court did not err by rejecting Defendant’s argument and in finding that the patient consent form has no bearing on consent under Montana’s DUI law. View "State v. Shepp" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with felony criminal possession. The district court granted the State’s motion for a continuance and reset Defendant’s trial for a day 285 days after his arrest. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for speedy trial violations. The district court denied the motion. Defendant pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his speedy trial motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial, considering the State’s reason for the delay, the simplicity and nature of the charges, and the prejudice to Defendant by his inability to participate in drug rehabilitation programs and community placement because of his unduly lengthy incarceration in county jail, in conjunction with Defendant’s need for treatment. Remanded for dismissal of the charges. View "State v. Mayes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion for discovery sanctions, specifically the denial of a continuance, and Defendant’s motion for mistrial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s request for a sanction, in the form of a continuance; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for mistrial on grounds that the State made improper comments or suggestions during opening statements. View "State v. Pierce" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct in the Bozeman Municipal Court. Defendant was sentenced to pay a $100 fine and $135 in surcharges and fees. Defendant appealed his sentence to the district court, asserting eight grounds for appeal. The district court declined appellate jurisdiction and remanded the matter to the municipal court for enforcement of Defendant’s sentence, determining that Defendant’s $100 fine did not satisfy the threshold amounts for appellate jurisdiction set forth in the applicable rules or statutes and that it was unlikely that Defendant would prevail on any of the issues raised. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to appeal did not constitute an abuse of discretion or error. View "City of Bozeman v. King" on Justia Law

Cory Patterson and Jesse Alma King each pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary. As part of his sentence, Patterson was ordered to pay, jointly and severally with King, $28,592 in restitution. Patterson challenged the restitution ordered for one of the victim’s lost wages, damages to firearms that were stolen, mileage expenses, and copying costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting the victim’s restitution requests for lost wages, mileage, copying costs, and personal property damage, and the claims were supported by sufficient evidence. View "State v. Patterson" on Justia Law

In 2014, the State charged Defendant with felony driving under the influence (DUI). The probable cause affidavit alleged that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions, one from North Dakota in 1988. Defendant filed a motion arguing that the 1988 conviction was not a qualifying conviction because it was impossible to determine whether the conviction was a “blood alcohol concentration” conviction or an “under the influence” conviction because the same North Dakota statute governed both offenses. The district court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that it was Defendant’s burden to prove the nature of the 1988 conviction. The court then ruled that the conviction could be used to support the felony charge. Defendant pleaded guilty to the felony, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State bore the burden of proving that the 1988 conviction could be used to support its felony charge against Defendant and that the State failed to meet this burden. Remanded. View "State v. Krebs" on Justia Law