Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Between December 11, 2011 and January 1, 2012, the Billings Police Department responded to more than 200 reports of vandalism. B.W., a youth, admitted to having committed acts of vandalism on December 22, 2011 and December 29, 2011. The youth court adjudicated B.W. a delinquent youth for having committed criminal mischief, common scheme and ordered B.W. to pay $78,702 in restitution, which represented the total damages sustained over the eleven-day vandalism spree. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the youth court erred in concluding that B.W. was jointly and severally liable for the full amount of restitution for damages where the State did not establish that B.W. was accountable for the crimes of others in which Defendant did not participate. Remanded for a new restitution hearing. View "In re B.W." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of accountability to burglary and theft. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence for accountability to burglary and reversed Defendant’s conviction for theft, holding (1) the district court did not err by instructing the jury on the theory of accountability when the State had not directly charged an accountability based offense, as the circumstances surrounding the trial put Defendant on notice that the State would pursue an accountability theory; (2) defense counsel’s submission of a jury instruction defining “purposely” in Montana’s accountability statute as a conduct-based rather than result-based mental state resulted in no prejudice to Defendant’s position at trial; and (3) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to Defendant’s theft conviction on the grounds that it violated Montana’s statutory restriction on multiple charges. View "State v. Tellegen" on Justia Law

On November 26, 2011, the State charged Defendant with five misdemeanor offenses. On June 13, 2012, Defendant moved to dismiss the case on the ground that trial was being held beyond the six-month deadline imposed by Mont. Code Ann. 46-13-4013(2). The justice court denied Defendant’s motion, reasoning that good cause existed for holding Defendant’s trial past the deadline. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lower courts did not err in finding that good cause existed for holding Defendant’s trial eight days past the six-month deadline. View "State v. Luke" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, a felony. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by instructing the jury on the elements of the offense prior to the delivery of opening statements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred by, before opening statements, reading the jury instructions regarding the elements of the offense of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs without finding good cause; but (2) under the circumstances, Defendant’s substantial rights were not prejudicially affected by the error. View "State v. Otto" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with one count of burglary and two counts of misdemeanor assault. Defendant pleaded guilty to the assaults but proceeded to a jury trial on the burglary charge. Defendant filed a motion to excuse a certain juror for cause based on the juror’s answers during voir dire to questions as to whether the juror inherently thought a law enforcement officer was more believable than a non-officer. The trial court denied the motion, and Defendant was subsequently convicted of burglary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to excuse the juror for cause. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of felony assault with a weapon. The district court sentenced Defendant to a ten-year term commitment to the Department of Corrections (DOC) with five years suspended. After Defendant’s probation officer filed a report of violation, a petition for revocation was filed in district court. Following a hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to a five-year commitment to DOC with recommended placement at a prerelease facility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition for revocation; and (2) the district court did not violate Defendant’s due process rights by considering the criminal history information in the presentencing investigation report, nor did it abuse its discretion by requiring Defendant to serve the remainder of his original sentence. View "State v. Edmundson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to felony theft pursuant to a plea agreement. Although both parties recommended that the district court follow the plea agreement in sentencing Defendant, the district court rejected the plea agreement and sentenced Defendant to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for ten years, with five years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court committed plain error and violated his due process rights by rejecting the plea agreement and failing to afford him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it rejected the plea agreement’s sentencing recommendation without giving Defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea; and (2) Defendant’s trial attorney did not provide ineffective assistance. View "State v. Olson" on Justia Law

Rober Spoja represented Duste White regarding White’s probation revocation. The sentencing court sentenced White but did not mention whether the sentence was to be served concurrently with other sentences. White petitioned to correct his sentence. The court entered an amended re-sentencing order allowing him to serve his term concurrently with other sentences, resulting in an earlier discharge date. Believing he was incarcerated for fourteen months longer than his actual sentence, White retained Bryan Tipp to represent him in a civil action against Spoja and Spoja’s law firm. After Tipp discovered the sentencing court had not ordered concurrent sentences, Tipp moved successfully to dismiss the case without informing Spoja. Spoja subsequently filed a civil action against White, Tipp, and Tipp’s law firm. The district court dismissed Spoja’s claims. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the entry of summary judgment against Spoja’s attorney deceit claim, and the award of costs, as a trier of fact could find Tipp acted deceitfully and intended to do so; and (2) affirmed the dismissal of Spoja’s malicious prosecution claim and the award of summary judgment against his abuse of process claim. View "Spoja v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to forgery and issuing bad checks and received a deferred sentence. Defendant subsequently violated the conditions of his supervision. The district court imposed two consecutive commitments to the Department of Corrections, with all time suspended. The district court subsequently found that Defendant violated the terms of his probation and revoked Defendant’s suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) neither the relevant statutes nor due process require the State to produce independent evidence corroborating an offender’s admission of a violation of the conditions of his or her supervision; and (2) the district court did not violate Defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses during the revocation hearing. View "State v. Macker" on Justia Law

Linda and Gerald Cintron gave Defendant a down payment of $180,000 and a promissory note to buy three five-acre lots from Defendant. The Cintrons never received title to the land, nor did Defendant refund the Cintrons’ money. Based on this incident, the State charged Defendant with felony theft by deception. Defendant entered a no contest plea to the charge in return for a six-year deferred sentence and a restitution obligation. After a restitution hearing, the district court imposed a total restitution in the amount of $164,861, which represented the $180,000 investment less the $125,000 Defendant had already paid, plus the Cintrons’ tax liability resulting from their use of their retirement accounts to raise the down payment, including an excise tax. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Defendant should not be required to make restitution for the income tax liabilities the Cintrons faced when they received restitution for the $180,000; but (2) Defendant may be required to pay restitution of the excise tax. View "State v. Cerasani" on Justia Law