Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to criminal endangerment, driving under the influence, and being a habitual traffic offender operating a motor vehicle. The district court sentenced Defendant to a three-year suspended sentence, a fine, and participation in Adult Impaired Driving Court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s felony criminal endangerment charge did not qualify as an exception to the prior felony conviction rule, and therefore, Defendant did not qualify for a deferred sentence; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to specific performance of the original plea agreement that recommended a three-year deferred sentence because he had a prior felony conviction that was not discovered until after the plea agreement was executed. View "State v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated assault or, in the alternative, criminal endangerment. At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, Defendant moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence, arguing that the State had not met its burden of proving that Defendant was not justified in his use of force. The district court denied the motion. A jury found Defendant guilty of criminal endangerment and not guilty of aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant was not justified in his use of force, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the jury an “aggressor” instruction pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 45-3-105(2)(a). View "State v. Erickson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded not guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol, obstructing a peace officer, and driving while license suspended. Defendant filed two motions to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, contending that the City had not diligently prosecuted the case. The municipal court denied both motions, concluding that Defendant’s conduct had caused the delay. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of obstructing a police officer and driving while license suspended. The district court affirmed the municipal court’s orders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the municipal court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions to dismiss, as Defendant’s rights to a speedy trial were not violated. View "City of Kalispell v. Gabbert" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with misdemeanor DUI in city court. After the prosecution discovered Defendant had three prior DUIs, the city court transferred the case to the district court but failed to dismiss the misdemeanor. Thereafter, Defendant moved to dismiss on the basis that the misdemeanor was not brought to trial within six months of arraignment. The city court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that there was no speedy trial violation because the case had been transferred to the district court. The State subsequently charged Defendant with felony DUI, and the city court dismissed the misdemeanor charge. Defendant argued that the city court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss. The district court agreed that the prosecution failed to follow the proper procedure when it transferred the case from city court to district court but concluded that the procedural flaw did not affect Defendant’s rights. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that Defendant suffered no violation of his right to a trial within six months of arraignment because he moved for a postponement of the original trial date. View "State v. Christensen" on Justia Law

In 2012, Defendant pleaded guilty to bad check and bail jumping charges. The State thereafter charged Defendant with two new offenses of bail jumping for failing to appear at two sentencing proceedings in 2010 and 2011. Defendant moved to dismiss the new charges, alleging that they constituted vindictive prosecution. The district court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that the subsequent bail jumping offenses, which had been discussed in prior plea negotiations, fell within the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Defendant pled guilty to the new bail jumping charges but reserved his right to appeal the vindictive prosecution issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no support for a finding of vindictive prosecution. View "State v. Ridge" on Justia Law

In 2007, Plaintiff was convicted of several sex-related crimes. In 2008, Plaintiff was sentenced to thirty-five years imprisonment. In 2013, Plaintiff filed a pro se claim against Defendant, the attorney who defended him during his criminal trial, claiming that Defendant failed to meet the appropriate standard of care for legal representation by failing to secure certain testimony at trial. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that Plaintiff’s claim was time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Defendant on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claim was time barred by Mont. Code Ann. 27-2-206. View "Passmore v. Watson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of sexual assault. Appellant moved that the district court sentence him to the misdemeanor penalty of a first conviction of sexual assault under Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-502(2)(a) rather than the felony penalty in section 45-5-502(3). The district court granted the motion, concluding that the misdemeanor penalty provided by section 45-5-502(2)(a) was the maximum sentence that could be imposed. The State appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the facts found by the jury constituted felony sexual assault under section 45-5-502(3), and therefore, the district court may proceed to sentencing under that provision. View "State v. Ghostbear" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Carri Robertson and Joseph Robertson were found guilty of criminal trespass and theft. The Supreme Court affirmed the theft convictions, vacated the trespass convictions, and remanded the written judgments to the district court for amendment, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict the Robertsons of theft, but there was insufficient evidence to support the trespass convictions; (2) the Robertsons’ failure to preserve certain issues with a timely objection at trial was fatal to their claims; and (3) the written judgments did not conform to the oral pronouncement of sentences. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. Defendant appealed, arguing that the municipal court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an investigative stop. Specifically, Defendant claimed that the ordinances of the City of Missoula that impose a $500 fine for refusing to give a breath sample were invalid and that the arresting officer unlawfully administered a breath test despite her initial refusal. The district court affirmed the decision of the municipal court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Missoula has authority to enact ordinances creating a misdemeanor penalty for the refusal to submit to a requested breath test; (2) the arresting officer did not violate statutory procedures by administering a post-arrest breath test with Defendant’s consent; and (3) the Missoula ordinances criminalizing the refusal to submit to a breath test do not unconstitutionally impair Defendant’s freedom of speech. View "City of Missoula v. Armitage" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault. Appellant moved for a new trial and acquittal, arguing, among other things, that testimony at trial failed to bear out the prosecution’s theory that a newspaper article reporting that Appellant had been accused of molesting a five-year-old boy prompted the complainant’s disclosure, and that the unfair prejudice caused by testimony about the newspaper article outweighed its probative value. The district court vacated the sexual assault conviction and denied the motion with respect to the remaining issues. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the probative value of the evidence regarding the newspaper article was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and should have been excluded. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Franks" on Justia Law