Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and related charges. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction for aggravated assault because it was an included offense of the charge of felony murder and affirmed the remaining convictions. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting that his attorneys at trial and on appeal provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in deciding that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

Three defendants (jointly, Appellants) were convicted in municipal court of various traffic violations, including driving with a suspended license. The district court affirmed the convictions. Appellants appealed separately to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and affirmed, holding (1) Mont. Code Ann. 61-5-212 imposes absolute liability, and a conviction under this statute does not require a culpable mental state; (2) because the evidence presented in each of Appellant’s trials met the requirements for conviction under section 61-5-212, the district court did not err in affirming Appellants’ convictions; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the letters notifying Appellants of their suspensions were admissible as certified copies of public records under Mont. R. Evid. 904. View "City of Kalispell v. Omyer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of incest, sexual assault, and sexual intercourse without consent against a child age sixteen or younger, sexual intercourse without consent against a child age twelve or younger, and sexual assault against a child age sixteen or younger. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly excluded evidence that three of the four victims suffered prior sexual abuse by others; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that certain statements made by the prosecutor rose to a level that triggered the threshold for undertaking plain error review. View "State v. Awbery" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of incest, sexual intercourse without consent, and sexual assault. The district court sentenced Defendant to terms of imprisonment on each of the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion in excluding Defendant’s expert witness from testifying at trial, as Defendant was qualified in both education and experience to provide the testimony sought by Defendant; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by mechanistically applying the Rape Shield Law to exclude evidence that Defendant offered at trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Colburn" on Justia Law

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