Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of charges stemming from the sexual assault of his stepdaughter. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). One day before his reply brief was due, Defendant sought leave to file an amended petition. The district court granted the motion but prohibited him from asserting new claims. Defendant then filed his amended PCR petition, which the district court denied. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s limitation of new claims in Defendant’s amended PCR petition; but (2) reversed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s PCR petition and remanded for reconsideration of Defendant’s amended PCR petition by a new judge because the judge that ruled on the petition had an impermissible conflict of interest based on his previous representation of Defendant’s wife in a divorce proceeding. View "Bullman v. State" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with felony criminal endangerment and felony DUI. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the charges, and a mistrial was declared. At the second trial, defense counsel offered a jury instruction on negligent endangerment as a lesser included offense of criminal endangerment, but the court declined to give the instruction. The jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of criminal endangerment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to give Defendant’s proposed jury instruction of negligent endangerment as a lesser included offense of criminal endangerment, and Defendant was prejudiced by this error. View "State v. Shegrud" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested after law enforcement officers responded to a report that Defendant had stolen a purse and, after conducting a warrant check, learned that Defendant had an outstanding city warrant. At the detention center, officers conducted an inventory search of Defendant’s purse and found drugs and drug paraphernalia. The State charged Defendant with criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress or dismiss, which the district court denied. Defendant pleaded guilty to both counts. Defendant subsequently appealed the denial of her motion to suppress and dismiss, asking the Supreme Court to overturn State v. Pastos, in which the Court held that a compelling state interest justifies a routine, administrative inventory search of the personal property in the possession of the arrestee at the station house following a lawful arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion and, in so doing, reaffirmed its decision in Pastos, holding (1) safety concerns and procedural safeguards justify the inventory searches at issue; and (2) the search of Defendant’s purse was a valid inventory search under Pastos. View "State v. Demontiney" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of accountability for criminal distribution of dangerous drugs and committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections for fifteen years, with ten years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by moving to preclude evidence of accountability or conspiracy, which Defendant alleged alerted the State to its “charging error," thus prompting the State to amend the charges and thereby assuring his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s argument was entirely without merit and that the efforts of Defendant’s attorney were well within the wide range of reasonable professional conduct. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

After a jury trial that was held in absentia, Appellant was convicted of obstructing a peace officer, resisting arrest, failing to carry motor vehicle liability insurance, and speeding. Appellant appealed. Appellant subsequently failed to appear at an indigence hearing to determine Appellant’s eligibility for appointed counsel. The district court dismissed the appeal for Appellant’s failure to appear for the scheduled court date. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellant’s appeal from the justice court because (1) Appellant failed to appear for a scheduled court date; and (2) there was not good cause precluding the district court from dismissing Appellant’s appeal. View "State v. Ziolkowski" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and two counts of felony assault with a weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported Appellant’s convictions for felony assault with a weapon; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting a justifiable use of force defense to the felony assault with a gun charge; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to present rebuttal evidence to impeach defense witness testimony; and (4) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. View "State v. Redlich" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of exploiting an older person, a felony. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the district court held a hearing on the competency of the victim to testify at trial. The court determined that the victim was competent to testify, but by the time of trial, the victim’s health had deteriorated and she was unable to testify. At trial, Appellant asked the district court to admit a transcript of the victim’s testimony at the competency hearing. The district court denied the request, determining that the victim’s competency hearing did not pertain to the issues in the bench trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly applied Mont. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) and did not abuse its discretion in determining that the prior testimony was not sufficiently reliable to come within the exception to the rule excluding hearsay. View "State v. Homer" on Justia Law

After Petitioner was involved in an accident from allegedly hitting a building with his truck, Petitioner was cited for DUI, third offense. Petitioner’s driver’s license was seized based on his refusal to submit to a blood or breath test. Defendant subsequently filed a petition to reinstate his driver’s license. The hearing on Petitioner’s petition was continued several times. Meanwhile, a jury found Defendant not guilty of the underlying DUI charge. Based on this acquittal and “res judicata and/or collateral estoppel” principles, Petitioner filed a petition asking the district court to enter judgment against the State on his petition and to permanently reinstate his license. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Petitioner’s petition for reinstatement of his driver’s license, as the acquittal in municipal court did not establish res judicata or collateral estoppel in Petitioner’s reinstatement proceeding. View "Ditton v. Dep't of Justice Motor Vehicle Div." on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with aggravated assault against his wife and criminal endangerment. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal endangerment and the lesser offense of assault. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) criminal endangerment is a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault, and charging both crimes is prohibited by statute, and (2) his counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to invoke Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-225, which requires a sentencing court to evaluate specific criteria when assessing imprisonment alternatives for non-violent offenders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not simultaneously convicted on a lesser and greater offense; and (2) Defendant suffered no prejudice from his counsel’s conduct at sentencing. View "Zink v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony theft by insurance fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that an insurance administrator is a person who adjusts or settles claims; (2) the Court declines to exercise plain error review of the State’s remarks during closing argument; (3) the district court did not err by ordering Defendant to pay restitution when the affidavit of loss was prepared by an independent adjuster; and (4) Defendant’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised in a postconviction proceeding before a district court, where an evidentiary record may be developed. View "State v. Schaeffer" on Justia Law