Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony sexual assault. Defendant was sentenced to seventy years imprisonment with twenty years suspended for the sexual abuse charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) when it permitted Defendant’s sister to testify about Defendant’s abuse of her when she was a child; (2) when it limited the defense examination of witnesses regarding specific instances of conduct; and (3) when it admitted into evidence testimony from the State’s expert witness, a forensic interview for a child protection team. View "State v. Given" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to felony criminal endangerment of the mother of his young children. The district court sentenced Defendant to the custody of the Department of Corrections for five years with two of those suspended and conditions of probation including the condition that Defendant not have contact with the victim or his two children unless the contact was voluntarily initiated by the victim and the children and approved by the probation and parole officer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the condition did not represent an abuse of the district court’s discretion. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of assault on a peace officer. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, alleging improper contact between the judge and the jury while the jury was deliberating. Specifically, Defendant argued that the judge committed reversible error by asking the jury about the status of its deliberations outside of the presence of Defendant and the public. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the violation of Defendant’s right to presence was not reversible error; and (2) the closure did not impair the fairness of Defendant’s trial. View "State v. Northcutt" on Justia Law

In 1995, Defendant pled guilty to forgery and bail jumping. Defendant’s original sentence was a twenty-year commitment to the Department of Corrections (DOC) with ten years suspended. The district court’s sentence made Defendant subject to various conditions during the suspended portion of the sentence. In 1996, Defendant escaped from jail. In 2011, the Adult Probation and Parole Bureau learned that Defendant was serving a supervisory sentence in Oregon. The State subsequently filed a petition to revoke Defendant’s suspended sentence for violating the conditions of his suspended sentence. The district court revoked the suspended portion of Defendant’s sentence and sentenced Defendant to ten years in Montana State Prison (MSP). The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) the petition to revoke Defendant’s suspended sentence was properly filed before the period of suspension began; (2) Defendant was not denied due process by not signing the conditions of his probation, and the district court’s refusal to admit the documents related to that defense was harmless; but (3) the district court erred in sentencing Defendant to MSP rather than the DOC and in failing to give Defendant credit for time served while he was incarcerated awaiting extradition to Montana. Remanded. View "State v. Graves" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to robbery, assault with a weapon, and burglary. The district court sentenced Defendant to prison and imposed numerous conditions on his partially suspended term. In the sentencing order, the district court specified that Defendant’s firearms in the possession of the sheriff were to be sold and applied to the cost of Defendant’s incarceration in a county detention center. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not have the authority to order the sale of Defendant’s firearms and to apply the proceeds against Defendant’s incarceration costs. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving her right to appeal the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress. Defendant appealed, arguing that her motion to suppress should have been granted because she was illegally seized when she admitted she had contraband in her purse and consented to a search and, thus, that her admission and consent must be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal seizure. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant and reversed, holding that no objective facts justified the seizure of Defendant, and therefore, the seizure was illegal and all evidence obtained as a result of it must be suppressed. Remanded. View "State v. Emerson" on Justia Law

Defendant’s wife obtained an order of protection prohibiting all contact between Defendant and his wife. Thereafter, Defendant was charged with four counts of violating an order of protection for calling his wife four times from between approximately 4 p.m. and 11 p.m. on November 6, 2012. Defendant moved to dismiss all four charges against him or, in the alternative, to dismiss three of the four charges as part of the same transaction pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-410. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, the parties disputed whether Defendant’s telephone calls constituted conduct that was part of the same transaction and, assuming that they did, whether the calls met the exception under section 46-11-410(2)(e). The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the prosecutor acted within her discretion in charging Defendant with four counts of violating the order of protection. View "State v. Strong" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of theft, a felony, and was sentenced as a persistent felony offender to a term of twenty-five years at Montana State Prison, with fifteen suspended, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $25,000. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court declines to exercise plain error review of Defendant’s challenge to the district court’s failure to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that Defendant acted with the purpose to deprive; and (2) Defendant has not established a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure to object to the jury instructions as given by the court. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of deliberate homicide and sentenced to forty years in prison. Defendant later filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he had discovered new evidence warranting a new trial. The district court denied Defendant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court failed adequately to address Defendant’s newly discovered evidence claim, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the district court erred by determining, on this record, that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because the court misapprehended the law and misapprehended the effect of Defendant’s evidence. View "Wilkes v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of negligent homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in permitting Dianna Nelson to testify as a witness at trial because, although the State provided untimely notice of its intention to use Nelson as a material witness, Defendant was aware of the nature of Nelson’s testimony and of the State’s ongoing efforts to locate Nelson; and (2) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, as a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of negligent homicide. View "State v. Bowen" on Justia Law