Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Missoula Police took into custody Bobby Bilderback, who was wanted in connection with a homicide case, and seized his Hummer vehicle. Missoula officers searched the Hummer pursuant to a warrant and found over $36,000 in cash and methamphetamine. The Missoula Chief of Police instituted this proceeding seeking forfeiture of the Hummer, the cash, and other items found during the search. Bilderback failed to appear at the forfeiture hearing, and the district court ordered forfeiture of the Hummer and the cash. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly denied Bilderback’s motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant executed on his Hummer vehicle; (2) properly denied Bilderback’s motion to dismiss the forfeiture proceeding for lack of personal service of the notice of the forfeiture hearing; and (3) properly denied Bilderback’s motion for summary judgment. View "Muir v. Bilderback" on Justia Law

A.D.T. was adjudicated as a delinquent youth and juvenile offender. A.D.T. was later transferred to district court pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 41-5-208 for supervision by the Department of Corrections when he reached his eighteenth birthday. Thereafter, the district court imposed forty-one new conditions to A.D.T.’s probation and supervision. The State subsequently filed a petition to revoke A.D.T.’s probation. A.D.T. moved to dismiss the State’s revocation petition, arguing that imposition of the forty-one conditions violated section 41-5-208(4) and exceeded the scope of the youth court’s disposition and transfer order. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, found that A.D.T. had violated terms of his probation, and placed him on formal probation with Adult Probation and Parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) erred in denying A.D.T.’s motion to dismiss the petition regarding those conditions which were not originally set forth in the youth court’s disposition or transfer order; but (2) correctly determined that there were conditions of the underlying youth court disposition that were violated and thus did not err in imposing conditions pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-201 through -203. View "In re A.D.T." on Justia Law

The Missoula Chief of Police instituted this proceeding seeking forfeiture of a Hummer on the ground that it was involved in unlawful drug transactions. The Missoula Police determined that Marie Felton was the sham owner of the Hummer and that the police were not required to name her in the forfeiture proceeding or to serve her with the summons and a copy of the forfeiture of the petition. Felton moved to intervene in the forfeiture action. The district court denied the motion to intervene, concluding that Felton became a party when she requested release of the vehicle. The district court also dismissed Felton’s claim that she was not properly served with the forfeiture petition and summons. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the forfeiture proceeding was ineffective in terminating Felton’s interest in the vehicle because the district court erred in determining that Felton was a party to the forfeiture action and in relying on Felton’s presumed knowledge of the setting of the forfeiture hearing as adequate substitutes for timely service of summons and a copy of the forfeiture petition as required by Montana law. Remanded with instructions to vacate the order of forfeiture of the Hummer vehicle as to Felton. View "Muir v. Felton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault with a weapon and partner or family member assault. During the trial, the prosecution sought to admit portions of a transcript from a civil order of protection hearing at which Defendant’s ex-wife testified to violence by Defendant. The district court found that the ex-wife’s statements satisfied the requirements of Mont. R. Evid. 804(b)(1)(B) and admitted the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s confrontation rights were violated when prior testimony from the civil order of protection hearing was read at his criminal trial and that the admission of the testimony of Defendant’s ex-wife was not harmless. View "State v. Pingree" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual intercourse without consent, and indecent exposure for his criminal conduct with A.B. and K.S. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by admitting limited evidence of an uncharged act of sexual assault allegedly committed by Defendant; (2) did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence that K.S. was physically abused by her husband several years after the sexual assaults; and (3) erred when it issued a written sentence that was partially inconsistent with the sentence it had orally pronounced. View "State v. Pulst" on Justia Law

A police officer stopped Defendant’s car after recognizing him as a person who had a suspended driver’s license. The officer placed Defendant under arrest and conducted a pat-down search leading to the discovery of a prescription medication bottle in the cuff of Defendant’s leg. Defendant later pleaded guilty to felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the contents of the prescription bottle seized at the time of his arrest, arguing that the opening of the pill bottle was an illegal search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the pill bottle because he claimed no ownership of the bottle or its contents, and therefore, there was no search in the constitutional sense. View "State v. McKeever" on Justia Law

Defendant failed to yield while making a left turn and collided with a motorcycle. The driver of the motorcycle and his passenger (together, the Boots) suffered injuries as result of the accident. Defendant pleaded guilty to negligent vehicular assault. After a sentencing hearing, the district court issued a judgment and sentence ordering Defendant to pay restitution to the Boots and to the Crime Victim Compensation Program for a total restitution amount of $618,816. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in ordering him to pay restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in awarding restitution. View "State v. Passwater" on Justia Law

After he crashed a truck into a light post Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). Defendant consented to a blood draw for toxicological testing, which revealed that his blood contained 6.2 mcg/ml of 1,1-difluoroethane (DFE), a chemical found in dust-remover. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the DUI charge, arguing that DFE does not fit within the statutory definition of “drug.” The district court denied the motion to dismiss. Defendant subsequently entered into a plea agreement, and the court accepted his guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it did not apply the pharmacy definition of “drug” and instead used a commonly understood plain meaning definition; and (2) under that definition, DFE could be considered a drug, and driving while under the influence of DFE a violation of the DUI statute. View "State v. Pinder" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts of attempted deliberate homicide. Before trial, Defendant moved to suppress statements he made while in custody, arguing that he was never informed of his right to remain silent and that all questioning by law enforcement should have ceased when he asked for an attorney. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant was subsequently convicted on both counts of attempted homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it (1) denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the statements he made after he was in custody, after he requested an attorney, and before he was notified of his Miranda rights were spontaneous; and (2) denied Defendant’s motion to exclude one of the victims of the crime from the courtroom. View "State v. Braulick" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of deliberate homicide. After the matter had been set for sentencing, Appellant sought the appointment of new counsel and also filed a motion for withdrawal of his guilty plea. The district court denied Appellant’s request for the appointment of new counsel and further denied his motion to withdraw his plea. The court then sentenced Appellant to life in prison. The Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings on a limited issue, holding that the district court failed to adequately inquire into Appellant’s complaint that defense counsel had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Schowengerdt" on Justia Law