Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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