Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was stopped for crossing the center line of a road with his vehicle. When Petitioner refused to perform a breath alcohol test he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Petitioner’s driver’s license was subsequently suspended. Thereafter, Petitioner petitioned the district court to reinstate his driver’s license. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner violated Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-328 when his vehicle “slightly crossed over the yellow center line.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by deciding that Petitioner violated section 6-18-328 when he directed his vehicle across the yellow center line. View "Mitchell v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1984, Defendant was convicted of deliberate homicide for a crime committed when Defendant was seventeen. The district court imposed the maximum sentence of one hundred years’ imprisonment without the possibility of parole, a sentence that was within the discretion of the district court and that was not mandated by law. Defendant attempted in numerous filings to attack his conviction and sentence, to no avail. Defendant now petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the constitutionality of his sentence under Miller v. Alabama. The Supreme Court denied the habeas petition, holding that the Miller sentencing consideration rule requiring a sentencing judge to consider a juvenile offender’s age when sentencing that offender to life without parole is not retroactive to Defendant’s claim on collateral review. View "Beach v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of assault on a peace officer or judicial officer, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-210(1)(b). Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the state was required to prove mental state as to every element of the offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the given jury instruction was a misstatement of the law because it required the jury to find the deputies were peace officers but not that Defendant knew them to be peace officers; and (2) the error clearly prejudiced Defendant. View "State v. Carnes" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender and and theft was sentenced to a net sentence of ten years in the Montana State Prison with five years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court judge was disqualified from hearing his case due to personal knowledge of facts in dispute in the sentencing proceeding and therefore should have recused himself. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant’s counsel knew of the factual basis for Defendant’s disqualification claim before sentencing but did not raise disqualification, Defendant’s claim was waived. View "State v. Dunsmore" on Justia Law

After initiating a traffic stop of the vehicle Appellant was driving, the deputy administered a preliminary breath test to Appellant, which reported an elevated blood alcohol concentration. Appellant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Because Appellant refused to take a breath test, his driver’s license was seized. Appellant subsequently filed a petition to have his license reinstated. The trial court concluded that Appellant was properly arrested for DUI and denied his petition for reinstatement of his driver’s license. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly found that the deputy had reasonable grounds to stop Appellant’s vehicle; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the State was not estopped from suspending Appellant’s license because of a statement made by the arresting officer regarding the consequences of Appellant providing a breath sample; and (3) Appellant’s refusal to submit to the blood test constituted a refusal within the meaning of Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-402 because Appellant failed to establish that he suffered from a psychological fear of needles rendering him physically unable to perform the test. View "Kummerfeldt v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-102. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the search of her purse by police officers, arguing that the tip the officers received failed to establish particularized suspicion and that her consent to search was involuntary, and therefore, the seizure and search were illegal. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err by concluding that the search of Defendant’s baggage was lawfully executed based upon Defendant’s voluntary consent; and (2) erred in its written judgment by altering Defendant’s sentence from its oral pronouncement. View "State v. Dupree" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of assault on a peace officer or judicial officer. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove mental state as to every element of the offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the given instruction’s failure to require that the jury find Defendant had acted purposely or knowingly with regard to the victims’ identity as police officers relieved the State’s burden to prove Defendant’s awareness that the deputies were in fact peace officers, and the error clearly prejudiced Defendant. View "State v. Carnes" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Defendant appealed, challenging the admission of a report from the State Forensic Science Division. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting the crime lab report into evidence and in concluding that the report was supported by proper foundation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the justice court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to exclude the crime lab report; and (2) Defendant’s additional argument was not preserved for appeal. View "State v. Schwarzmeier" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal mischief and cruelty to animals for fatally shooting a family dog.The district court ordered that Defendant to pay the entire $9,357 claimed by the family in restitution. The amount included medical expenses the family members sustained due to the stress of losing the dog and lost wages they incurred as a result of leaving work to cooperate in the prosecution of the offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the district court (1) erred by ordering Defendant to pay restitution to the victims for lost wages; (2) did not err by ordering Defendant to pay restitution for one victim’s medical bills; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion to produce records. View "State v. Barrick" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in justice court of misdemeanor driving under the influence, first offense. Defendant appealed to the district court and moved to exclude the results of his breath sample taken using an Intoxilyzer 8000 machine, arguing that they were obtained in violation of the machine’s checklist. The district court denied the motion. Defendant then pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to exclude. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion because, while the officers who took Defendant’s breath sample with the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine were not required to do so under the current administrative rule, ample evidence supported the conclusion that the officers complied with the breath analysis device’s operational checklist. View "State v. Levanger" on Justia Law