Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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