Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration in excess of 0.08. Defendant appealed and filed a motion to suppress the results of two separate blood alcohol concentration tests. The district court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently entered a guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that one blood test, drawn more than eight hours after the act of driving, was taken within a reasonable time under the circumstances, and therefore, the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress on this ground. View "State v. Hala" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted deliberate homicide. Defendant appealed, raising two issues for review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s attorney was not ineffective in failing to request an accomplice instruction, as the instruction was inconsistent with Defendant’s claim of innocence; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon the prosecution’s failure to disclose a video statement of a witness, as the late disclosure of the recording did not violate Defendant’s right to obtain exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland. View "State v. Root" on Justia Law

Defendant, a resident of Idaho, was charged with driving under the influence (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense. Defendant moved to dismiss the felony DUI charge, arguing that Idaho’s reduction, pursuant to a plea agreement, of his third DUI conviction to a second DUI, precluded Montana from charging him as a fourth DUI for sentencing purposes. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant had three prior convictions for DUI and that the label Idaho placed on the convictions was immaterial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that all of Defendant’s DUI convictions should be considered for purposes of sentencing, as Montana law requires all prior DUI convictions to be counted when determining whether felony enhancement is appropriate, and Montana has given full faith and credit to each conviction rendered by Idaho. View "State v. Barrett" on Justia Law

After a bench trial in the justice court, which is not a court of record, Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration in excess of 0.08. Defendant appealed to the district court and moved to suppress the results of two separate blood alcohol concentration (BAC) tests. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the release of the first test violated HIPAA, but any defect was harmless error, and that the second test, drawn more than eight hours after the act of driving, was taken within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the second test was taken within a reasonable time under the circumstances; and (2) because the district court’s ruling on the first issue is affirmed, the Court declines to reach the issues Defendant raised regarding the first test results. View "State v. Hala" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with a number of offenses under Mont. Code Ann. Title 87. Defendant moved to dismiss two of the counts for unlawful possession of wildlife on the grounds that the statute of limitations barred prosecution. The district court dismissed the two counts, concluding that the limitations period for unlawful possession of wildlife begins on the date a person takes possession of the unlawfully taken wildlife. The State then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control presenting the legal question of whether a violation of Mont. Code Ann. 87-6-202(1) is continuous conduct for statute of limitations purposes. The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition and exercised supervisory control, holding that a person stops violating section 87-6-202(1) - and the limitation period begins to run - only when he or she ceases to possess illegally taken wildlife. View "State v. Krueger" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving without liability insurance, habitual traffic offender operating motor vehicle, and refusal to submit to breath or blood alcohol and/or drug test. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence that was obtained from the stop of his vehicle for lack of particularized suspicion. The municipal court denied the motion. Defendant entered into a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s factual findings regarding the existence of particularized suspicion were not clearly erroneous. View "City of Missoula v. Sharp" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI). As part of the DUI investigation, Defendant provided a breath sample on an Intoxilyzer 8000. Defendant moved to bar the admission of the results of his breath sample, asserting that insufficient foundation existed to conclude that the instrument and the instrument operator were properly recertified under the Administrative Rules of Montana. The justice court granted the motion to suppress. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a sufficient foundation existed to admit the results of Defendant’s breath test under the administrative rules. View "State v. Poitras" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with partner or family member assault, second offense. The State filed notice that the Crime Victims Compensation Program sought restitution from Defendant for the amount the Program paid to the victim’s counselor as a result of treatment required by Defendant’s conduct. Defendant pleaded guilty to negligent endangerment and requested a hearing on the amount of the restitution. After a hearing, the municipal court found that a preponderance of the evidence supported the amount of restitution sought and ordered Defendant to make restitution to the Program for the counseling costs. The district court affirmed the restitution order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the municipal court erred in denying Defendant’s request to examine the mental health treatment form that supported the State’s restitution request, because, to the extent the form did not contain the victim’s private information, Defendant was entitled to view the form as a matter of procedural due process. View "State v. McClelland" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that he had not been brought to trial within six months of entering his not-guilty plea. The justice court denied the motion. The district court affirmed, concluding that good cause existed to hold Defendant’s trial past the six-month deadline provided in Mont. Code Ann. 46-13-401(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the justice court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, as good cause existed for holding his trial past the six-month deadline. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the deliberate homicide of his ex-wife. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements made while in police custody, because even if the police questioned Defendant in violation of his right to counsel and right to remain silent there was no reasonable probability that admission of the interview contributed to Defendant’s conviction; and (2) because there was no reasonable possibility the results of Defendant’s trial would have been different had the interview been held inadmissible, Defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel when counsel failed to present the video recording of the police interview at the suppression hearing must fail. View "State v. Larson" on Justia Law