Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant pled no contest to the charge of possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress and from the final judgment ordering him to pay the cost of his interpreter and imposing a ten-percent administration fee. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded, holding that the district court (1) correctly determined that the arresting officer had particularized suspicion to stop Defendant’s vehicle; (2) erred by ordering Defendant to pay the costs of his interpreter; and (3) erred when it imposed the ten-percent administration fee on Defendant. View "State v. Duong" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated assault, criminal mischief, and elder abuse for his conduct during one incident. Defendant filed a pretrial motion requesting that the court order the State to elect between prosecuting him for either aggravated assault or elder abuse, arguing that his federal double jeopardy protections and the protections of Montana’s “multiple charges” statute would be violated if he were prosecuted for both offenses. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the elder abuse statute was neither a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault nor a specific instance of aggravated assault. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding (1) Defendant may be prosecuted for more than one offense arising out of the same transaction; and (2) Defendant’s double jeopardy claim and reliance on the protections of the multiple charges statute were premature. View "State v. Violette" on Justia Law

Missoula County Sheriff’s Department (MCSD) deputies accompanied Christine Robutka to a rural property to assist with a civil standby while Robutka removed her belongings from the property. Robutka had been sharing a residence on the property with two men, including Defendant. While assisting with the civil standby, the deputies observed marijuana plants at the property. Robutka subsequently told detectives that Defendant was growing marijuana at the property. Thereafter, MCSD deputies obtained a warrant to search the property and executed the search, which resulted in the seizure of multiple adult marijuana plants. Defendant was charged with cultivating marijuana. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence gathered from the civil standby on the search. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant eventually pleaded guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and his resulting conviction, holding that the deputies did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights when they entered the driveway to conduct the civil standby, and the plain view observation of marijuana plants by MCSD deputies provided probable cause for the search warrant. View "State v. Urziceanu" on Justia Law

Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE) insured Defendant’s home in Clancy, Montana. When Defendant’s home was broken into and robbed, Defendant made a claim under her homeowner’s policy. FIE paid Defendant $22,602, representing property damage and actual cash value for the items Defendant claimed were stolen from the home. Defendant then submitted a supplemental claim in the amount of $23,102 for personal property she asserted she had replaced. When FIE concluded that the receipts Defendant provided to substantiate her replacement claims were fraudulent, FIE made a referral for criminal charges. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to felony insurance fraud and theft. The district court ordered Defendant to pay restitution to FIE in the amount of $22,602. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it ordered Defendant to pay restitution to FIE even where Defendant’s initial claim was legitimate because Defendant’s subsequent fraudulent replacement value claim voided her policy, and FIE suffered a pecuniary loss in the amount of Defendant’s initial claim. View "State v. Henderson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual intercourse without consent. Based upon the post-trial statements of the alleged victim, Defendant filed a request for a new trial. The district court denied the request, concluding that the motion was time-barred and that no exception to the time bar applied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion when, in considering whether Defendant was entitled to a new trial, it failed to apply State v. Clark (Clark I) factors and instead directed Defendant to pursue postconviction relief to address the alleged victim’s post-trial statements; and (2) after applying the Clark I factors to the alleged victim’s post-trial statements in this case, it is clear the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial. View "State v. Morse" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to criminal trespass and theft. The district court revoked a suspended sentence Defendant had received from an earlier conviction and committed him to the Department of Corrections for five years, with two years suspended. The court ordered that the sentence run consecutive to another sentence Defendant was serving. Defendant did not challenge the legality of his sentence through a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Instead, Defendant filed a Mont. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not perfect his appeal within the relevant timeframe, he was precluded from challenging his sentence with the Supreme Court. View "State v. Osborn" on Justia Law