Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Defendant was discharged from prison, he was required to register as a sexual offender. The State later charged Defendant with failure to give notice of change of address. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 100 years in the Montana State Prison, with sixty years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised in a petition for postconviction relief; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the jury to review a portion of the trial transcript during deliberation; and (3) the written judgment unlawfully increased Defendant’s sentence. Remanded. View "State v. Greene" on Justia Law

In 1988, Defendant pled guilty to sexual intercourse without consent and was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment with ten years suspended. In 1992, Defendant escaped from prison. After he was apprehended, he was convicted with escape and other charges. In 2007, Defendant was discharged to serve the suspended portion of his sentence. In 2011, the district court orally found that Defendant had substantially violated the conditions of his parole. The court then imposed a new sentence of ten years with all time suspended and imposed fourteen new conditions to Defendant’s suspended sentence. Thereafter, the district court revoked Defendant’s suspended sentence, sentenced Defendant to ten years imprisonment with five years suspended, and reimposed the fourteen new conditions on his suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the imposition of fourteen new conditions on Defendant’s suspended sentence for his 1988 crime did not violate ex post facto principles. Remanded. View "State v. Piller" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent. Defendant appealed, raising three allegations of error. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State to elicit testimony from Defendant’s girlfriend and others who knew the couple regarding Defendant’s sexual habits. Further, the tainted evidence was inflammatory in nature and likely contributed to Defendant’s conviction. The district court further erred by permitting a primary investigator to act as both a representative of the State and a witness during trial. Remanded. View "State v. Nichols" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of accountability for robbery. Defendant was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment with ten years suspended and ordered to pay restitution in an unspecified amount. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part, holding that the district court (1) properly instructed the jury on accountability for robbery; (2) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence; and (3) erred in requesting that correctional authorities determine restitution upon Defendant’s release. Remanded for a determination of the amount of restitution Defendant owed for the victim’s medical expenses. View "State v. Hanna" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was found guilty of assault with a weapon and sentenced to twenty years with the Department of Public Health and Human Services. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court (1) erred when it determined that he was not mentally fit to stand trial at a fitness proceeding in which he was not present, and (2) erred by failing to complete the initial appearance process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not prejudiced by his absence from the fitness proceeding; and (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by the district court’s failure to provide the advisories in Mont. Code Ann. 46-7-102. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of assault with a weapon and sentenced to twenty years with the Department of Public Health and Human Services. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by determining that he was not mentally fit to stand trial at a hearing in which he was not present and by failing to complete the initial appearance process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if Defendant was improperly excluded from the proceeding at which his fitness to proceed was determined, his absence from the proceeding did not render the result unjust or unfair; and (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by the district court’s failure to provide the advisories in Mont. Code Ann. 46-7-102. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of incest, one count of solicitation, and one count of sexual abuse of children. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his discovery requests for information contained in the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) files of his two victims without first conducting an in camera review. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant and ordered the case remanded to the district court to conduct an in camera review of the victims’ DPHHS files, holding that Defendant’s request was sufficient to invoke his right to potentially exculpatory information in the DPHHS files, and once he invoked that right, it was the trial court’s duty to conduct an in camera review to ascertain whether there was any exculpatory evidence in the files. View "State v. Johnston" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. During trial, the State presented no evidence that Defendant drove while under the influence but rather presented evidence intended to prove Defendant was in “actual physical control” of his truck when a police officer found him passed out at the wheel. Defendant appealed, arguing that because his vehicle was disabled in such a way that he could not move it, he could not be in actual physical control of his vehicle for purposes of the DUI statute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court improperly instructed the jury: “It does not matter that the vehicle is incapable of movement”; and (2) the instruction prejudicially affected Defendant’s substantial rights by preventing the jury from considering a valid defense. View "State v. Sommers" on Justia Law

On May 4, 2010, Defendant was arrested and cited with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), driving while license suspended, and traveling the wrong way on a one-way street. On September 18, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The justice court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that the six-month limit of Mont. Code Ann. 46-13-401(2) had not been violated because most of the delay was attributable to Defendant. After a trial at which Defendant failed to appear, the justice court found Defendant guilty of DUI per se and driving the wrong direction on a one-way street. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court affirmed, concluding that Defendant had disengaged from the process, and therefore, Defendant’s right to a speedy trial had not been violated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly refused to reverse the justice court’s decision, as Defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. View "State v. Hodge" on Justia Law

The State charged Appellant, a forty-year-old developmentally disabled man, with three counts of felony sexual intercourse without consent and one count of felony sexual assault. Appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault, and the district court accepted the plea. The district court subsequently sentenced Appellant to forty years imprisonment. Nearly one year after issuance of an amended judgment, Appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court concluded that Appellant’s motion was timely brought but refused to allow Appellant to withdraw his guilty plea, finding it had been entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s motion to withdraw plea was not time-barred; and (2) the district court did not err when it concluded that Appellant’s guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. View "State v. Garner" on Justia Law