Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal endangerment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on negligent endangerment as a lesser included offense of criminal endangerment and that she was entitled to a new trial on that basis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence demonstrates that Defendant acted knowingly in engaging in conduct that created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support an instruction on negligent endangerment as a lesser included offense of criminal endangerment. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal production or manufacture of dangerous drugs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the theory of accountability when the State did not charge Defendant with accountability in the information; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to admit Defendant’s medical marijuana provider application during rebuttal; (3) the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument were not improper; and (4) the district court acted within the proper bounds of its discretion when it denied Defendant’s request for a surrebuttal closing argument. View "State v. Dobrowski" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial in closing to the public a hearing on the admissibility of the victim’s prior allegations of sexual abuse; (2) did not err in preventing Defendant from questioning the victim about prior allegations of sexual abuse; and (3) did not err by not disclosing information contained in sealed records after conducting an in camera review. View "State v. Hoff" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of threats and other improper influence in official matters, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the improper influence conviction and reversed the conviction for criminal trespass, holding (1) the Court declines to consider in this appeal Defendant’s argument that the improper influence statute is unconstitutionally overbroad; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of improper influence; (3) the State did not present sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of criminal trespass; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence of prior incident with the arresting officer; and (5) the Court declines to consider whether Defendant’s counsel provided deficient representation by failing to object to the jury instructions on mental state. View "State v. Spottedbear" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial when it closed to the public a hearing on the admissibility of the victim’s prior allegations of sexual abuse; (2) did not abuse its discretion in preventing Defendant from questioning the victim about prior allegations of sexual abuse; and (3) did not err by not disclosing information contained in sealed records after conducting an in camera review. View "State v. Hoff" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted sexual abuse of children (referred to as “attempted possession of child pornography”). Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State met its evidentiary burden at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an appreciable fragment of the crime was in such progress that Defendant would have knowingly possessed child pornography unless interrupted by circumstances independent of his own will, as required by the relevant statute. View "State v. Colburn" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, elder abuse, and failure to comply with licensing requirements. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison for aggravated burglary, ten years in prison for elder abuse, and six months in jail for the licensing violation. All sentences were to run concurrently. Defendant appealed, arguing that receiving multiple convictions for elder abuse and aggravated burglary violated Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-410(2)(d) and that her counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that elder abuse and aggravated burglary do not constitute multiple convictions for the same offense and do not violate section 46-11-410(2)(d), and therefore, Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail. View "State v. Hooper" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six felony offenses of incest, sexual intercourse without consent, and sexual assault. During closing argument by Defendant’s attorney, an audience member interrupted and said, “Well I’d like to say that God is faithful and just to those who confess their sins.” On appeal, Defendant argued that the spectator’s remark deprived him of a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while the spectator’s comment was improper, it was not so serious that it caused a manifest miscarriage of justice, and the district court did not commit reversible error in addressing the improper remark. View "State v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to felony theft for stealing a car. The threshold value for stolen property to support a charge of felony theft was $1,500. At a sentencing and restitution hearing, the district court imposed restitution of $2,500. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in imposing a restitution obligation of $2,500. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly relied upon the evidence to set the restitution obligation; and (2) because the victim presented evidence of valuation in the amount of $2,500, the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute with a persistent felony offender designation. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized in the search of his car, asserting that the arresting officers lacked a particularized suspicion of wrongdoing involving narcotics sufficient to justify a canine sniff of his car. The district court denied the motion. Defendant entered a plea agreement admitting to the charges but reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, the district court did not err in determining that there was particularized suspicion to support the canine search of Defendant’s car. View "State v. Marino" on Justia Law