Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of partner or family member assault, third or subsequent offense. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Defendant’s other crimes or acts under the transaction rule, Mont. Code Ann. 26-1-103; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to use leading questions to elicit testimony from the victim - who was an adult with a developmental disability, mild mental handicap, and with confusion about time and place - on direct examination. View "State v. Sayler" on Justia Law

In September 2013, Defendant was arrested for possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia and was jailed for more than ten months while he awaited testing results from the State Crime Lab. Trial was finally held at the end of July 2014. By then, Defendant had been incarcerated for 309 days. Before trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of a speedy trial. The district court denied the motion. The jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of both charges. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial because he did not receive protection of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Velasquez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony incest against his minor child, T.W. Prior to trial, the State obtained T.W.’s medical records but failed to disclose the medical records to the defense. After the trial, Defendant gained access to the medical records. The records provided evidence that T.W. suffered from psychosis and that T.W. may have previously made and then recanted an allegation of sexual abuse against her mother. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial based on the State’s failure to disclose T.W.’s medical records. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the medical records contained favorable evidence to Defendant’s defense; and (2) the State’s failure to alert Defendant of the substance of the records caused Defendant prejudice. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Weisbarth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court affirmed Defendant’s conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) the justice court did not deny Defendant a fair trial when it refused to allow him to cross-examine the arresting officer about his administrative leave; (3) the justice court did not err when it allowed the officer to testify as an expert on horizontal gaze nystagmus; and (4) the justice court did not err in refusing Defendant’s proposed jury instructions on breath test refusal. View "State v. Krenning" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged by information with numerous sex offenses. Defendant filed a motion to change venue based on the amount of pretrial publicity surrounding the case. The district court denied the motion. The court also denied Defendant’s motion to suppress voice identification evidence. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of twenty-seven charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for change of venue, as Defendant failed to show anything beyond a bare allegation that the community was infected with prejudice; and (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress voice identification evidence, as the facts indicated sufficient indicia of reliability to allow the voice identification into evidence. View "State v. Griego" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with seven sex offenses and one offense of tampering with evidence. Less than one week before trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, contending that several motions recently filed by the State were untimely and that the State committed discovery violations. The district court conducted an emergency in-chambers conference that afternoon, but Defendant did not appear at the conference. During the conference, the district court vacated the trial date and continued the jury trial to a later date. The district court then denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of sexual assault. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion dismiss, arguing that he was prejudiced by his absence at the emergency hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no reasonable possibility that Defendant’s absence from the emergency conference caused him prejudice. View "State v. Blake" on Justia Law

Defendant was given a citation for violating Mont. Code Ann. 61-6-301(4), which prohibits operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance. At a bench trial before the justice court, Defendant’s attorney moved to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. The justice court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty. The district court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the justice court’s decision denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge for insufficient evidence, as there was sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant violated section 61-6-301(4). View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of attempted deliberate homicide, three counts of felony criminal mischief, and six counts of misdemeanor criminal mischief. After unsuccessfully seeking postconviction relief pursuant to two successive petitions, Defendant filed a third petition for postconviction relief, claiming newly discovered evidence. The district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant’s newly discovered evidence claim; and (2) the charging process used in Defendant’s criminal case was consistent with the 1972 Montana Constitution and Montana statutes. View "Kenfield v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with escape in Powell County. The State later stipulated that venue was proper in Yellowstone County. The Powell County District Court subsequently granted the State’s motion to dismiss the escape charge and dismissed the case without prejudice. Nearly seven months later, the State filed the escape charges in Yellowstone County. Before trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the case for lack of a speedy trial, alleging that his right to a speedy trial had attached upon his initial appearance on the Powell County charge. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant’s right to a speedy trial had not attached until the charges were re-filed in Yellowstone County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in calculating the length of the delay, as the speedy trial clock began running when charges first were filed in Powell County; (2) the time period from the dismissal of the charge initially filed against Defendant in Powell County to the filing of the charge in Yellowstone County is not counted for purposes of determining the length of the delay; and (3) the delay in this case did not establish a constitutional speedy trial violation. View "State v. Butterfly" on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant pled guilty to robbery. Since then, the district court revoked Appellant’s sentence three times. The third petition to revoke was filed in 2015. Appellant moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the State did not comply with the statutory procedure set forth in Mont. Code Ann. 46-23-1012(2). The district court denied the motion to dismiss and revoked Appellant’s probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss the revocation of his sentence pursuant to section 46-23-1012(2). View "State v. Rossbach" on Justia Law