Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2013, Defendant was charged with five counts of felony criminal endangerment and two counts of felony assault on a peace officer. Defendant later pleaded guilty to the charges. In 2014, the State filed a motion asking the court to set a sentencing hearing. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The district court denied Defendant’s motion and sentenced him to a total of thirty years imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that his right to a speedy trial was violated by pre-trial and pre-sentencing delays. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State did not violate Defendant’s right to a speedy trial through excessive pre-trial delay; and (2) although the sentencing delay was perhaps excessive, the State did not violate Defendant’s due process rights through sentencing delay. View "State v. Maloney" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that he was subject to pretrial punishment in violation of his due process rights as a result of a district court order issued following a “critical stage” hearing at which he was not present. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) Defendant’s pretrial punishment claim was raised for the first time on appeal and is therefore dismissed; (2) sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support Defendant’s conviction; and (3) the district court did not err in ruling that Defendant’s reliance on the affirmative defense of justifiable use of force required Defendant to testify at his trial. View "State v. R.S.A." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, the justice court convicted Defendant of the offense of acting as an outfitter without a license. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the justice court (1) abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s challenge for cause of a prospective juror; (2) the justice court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the State’s motion in limine prohibiting Defendant from presenting evidence to the jury regarding the circumstances surrounding suspension of his outfitters license; and (3) the justice court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant, as the sentence was legal under the applicable sentencing statutes. View "State v. Kebble" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of deliberate homicide. The presentence investigation report (PSI) recommended that Defendant be given two consecutive 100-year sentences and that the cost of appointed counsel be assigned to Defendant. The district court accepted the PSI recommendations. Defendant objected to the cost of appointed counsel, arguing that she was indigent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court adequately questioned Defendant regarding her ability to pay the costs of appointed counsel; (2) the district court determined that Defendant had or would have the ability to pay the costs of appointed counsel; (3) Defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial was not undermined by requiring her to pay the costs of appointed counsel; and (4) the absence of an itemization of costs of appointed counsel was not properly preserved for appeal. View "State v. Gable" on Justia Law

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