Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a warranted search of Defendant’s home, law enforcement officers seized sixty-seven live marijuana plants and numerous miscellaneous paraphernalia. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his residence, arguing that the application for the warrant lacked sufficient facts to establish probable cause that his home contained drugs or drug-related evidence. The district court denied Defendant’s combined motion to suppress and dismiss. Thereafter, Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession with intent to distribute dangerous drugs. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and dismiss, holding that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding there was a probability of criminal activity. View "State v. Kant" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Defendant was sentenced to five years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss the case for lack of evidence, arguing that the arresting police officer did not have particularized suspicion to conduct a stop of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motions to suppress and to dismiss, as, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the police officer had particularized suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defendant. View "State v. Ballinger" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged by information with driving under the influence of alcohol fourth or subsequent offense (DUI). The information provided that Defendant had been convicted of DUI on three previous occasions, including once in 1999. Defendant moved to dismiss the 1999 DUI conviction, alleging that his constitutional right to counsel was violated in that proceeding. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to satisfy his burden of proving that his 1999 conviction was constitutionally infirm; and (2) the district court erred by stating in the judgment that Defendant was convicted of a DUI rather than a DUI per se. Remanded. View "State v. Hancock" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual intercourse without consent. The victim was four years old at the time of the offenses. Defendant was sentenced to 100 years in prison and was not eligible for parole for the first fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motions that were made during trial to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence; and (2) Defendant’s claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call expert witnesses was more properly brought by a petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. McAlister" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant in Ravalli County with felony theft by common scheme for double-cashing seven paychecks issued by an employment agency located in Ravalli County. The paychecks were issued for Defendant’s work as a temporary employee at a senior living community in Missoula County. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him, alleging that they were brought in an improper venue. After a non-jury trial, Defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Ravalli County was a proper venue for the State to charge Defendant with felony theft by common scheme. View "State v. Deshazer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of seven counts of attempted deliberate homicide. The district court sentenced Defendant to serve a life term in prison on each count and declared him ineligible for parole. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred when it denied his request to instruct the jury on misdemeanor assault as a lesser-included offense of attempted deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not act arbitrarily, act without conscientious exercise of judgment, or exceed the bounds of reason when it determined that the evidence supported the jury’s consideration of only the offenses of attempted deliberate homicide or attempted aggravated assault, and further, the court’s refusal to instruct the jury on misdemeanor assault did not prejudice Defendant’s substantial rights. View "State v. Stewart" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), a fifth-offense felony. Defendant was sentenced to a thirteen-month commitment at the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) followed by a five-year suspended commitment at the DOC. Defendant appealed, arguing that his blood sample was not taken in compliance with Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-405(1). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly ruled that the results of Defendant’s blood-alcohol test were admissible at trial because Defendant’s blood sample was taken in compliance with section 61-8-405(1). View "State v. Allport" on Justia Law

After a jury trial at which Defendant represented himself, Defendant was found guilty of the felony offense of assault with a weapon. The district court sentenced Defendant to a twenty-year prison sentence with ten years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a petition for postconviction relief. The district court dismissed the petition, concluding that Defendant’s trial-related claims were procedurally barred because they could have been brought on direct appeal and that Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court correctly determined that Defendant’s trial-related claims were procedurally barred; (2) the district court correctly dismissed most of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims because they lacked merit; but (3) one of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims could not be resolved, as neither the record nor the district court’s order is sufficient to review for correctness the district court’s general conclusions. Remanded. View "Chyatte v. State" on Justia Law

While institutionalized at the Montana State Hospital, Defendant assaulted and injured a nurse. Defendant was charged with felony aggravated assault and was transferred to Montana State Prison, where he remained until the district court ordered that he be transferred back to the Hospital. The Hospital was statutorily required to submit a fitness-to-proceed evaluation report to the district court within ninety days of commitment but untimely submitted its report. Defendant moved to dismiss his assault charge on the grounds that the fitness evaluation report had not been timely submitted. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that by agreeing to a continuing course of treatment at the Hospital after the initial report was submitted to the district court, Defendant waived his objection to the timeliness of that report. Remanded. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Defendant appealed, contending that the prosecution’s comments suggesting that she could have proven her innocence by providing a breath test to law enforcement constituted prosecutorial misconduct and impermissibly asserted that Defendant was responsible for establishing her innocence, thereby denying Defendant her due process right to a fair and impartial trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant did not properly preserve her allegations of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal; and (2) the prosecutor’s remarks were improper but did not rise to a level sufficient to find plain error. View "State v. Favel" on Justia Law