Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault, incest, and attempted sexual intercourse without consent. The victim was thirteen years old during the abuse and fourteen at the time of trial. During trial, the court allowed a child sex abuse expert to testify, but the expert did not discuss the specifics of Defendant's case and did not offer an opinion of whether the victim had been abused. Defendant appealed, contending that the expert's testimony improperly invaded the jury's obligation to assess the victim's credibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the expert's testimony did not impinge upon the jury's obligation to ultimately decide the victim's credibility; and (2) moreover, the district court alleviated any concern of unfair prejudice by giving the jury a cautionary instruction before Defendant testified. View "State v. Robins" on Justia Law

Two police officers observed Defendant in a bar holding a beer can. Believing that Defendant was younger than twenty-one years old, the officers asked how old Defendant was then asked for identification to verify Defendant's age. The officers subsequently told Defendant to accompany the officers outside. After Defendant provided a false first name and birthdate, the officers placed Defendant under arrest. After confirming that Defendant was under twenty-one years old, the State charged Defendant with minor in possession and obstructing a police officer. The city court granted Defendant's motion to suppress. The district court affirmed, determining the officers had violated Defendant's right against self-incrimination by requesting Defendant's name, birthdate, and identification. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers had sufficient particularized suspicion to approach Defendant and ask his age, but the officers improperly expanded their investigation by taking Defendant outside without additional articulable facts. View "State v. Driscoll" on Justia Law

Defendant's vehicle hit Brian Beaver from behind, and Beaver died from severe blunt force trauma to his head. Defendant was assigned a public defender for his criminal case. Eight days before his trial, Defendant provided the district court with a pro se motion for appointment of different counsel, claiming that appointed counsel's representation was deficient. Defendant also filed a request for a continuance so that he could retain private counsel. The court denied Defendant's request for substitution of counsel, determining that counsel was providing adequate representation. The court also denied Defendant's motion to continue, determining that Defendant had lacked diligence in seeking private counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by finding that Defendant's counsel was providing effective assistance of counsel; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant had not made a good faith, diligent effort to retain substitute counsel. View "State v. Holm" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony aggravated assault and misdemeanor unlawful restraint. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, raising twelve issues. The district court determined that Defendant's petition did not demonstrate any kind of error, cumulative or otherwise, and dismissed the petition. Defendant appealed pro se to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that any error of his pre-trial and trial counsel prejudiced his right to a fair trial. View "Rukes v. State" on Justia Law

Wife petitioned the district court for dissolution of her marriage to Husband, who was incarcerated. Husband proceeded as a self-represented litigant, and the district court allowed Husband to appear telephonically at all hearings. When the final pretrial conference was held, Husband did not appear telephonically. Unbeknownst to the district court, Husband was experiencing medical problems that required surgery and hospitalization. After Husband was released from the prison infirmary, he mailed a motion to the district court requesting a sixty-day continuance. The district court received the motion, but after Husband failed to appear at a hearing to consider the motion, the court entered a default decree and declared the parties' marriage dissolved. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under these extraordinary circumstances, the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant Husband's motion for a continuance. Remanded to allow Husband to appear at a final pretrial conference and trial. View "Eslick v. Eslick" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a gun fight between Defendant and Michael Peters. Defendant was convicted of attempted deliberate homicide with a weapon. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial upon finding that prosecutorial comments regarding Defendant's post-Miranda silence constituted plain error. After the Court remanded the case, the district court held several pre-trial hearings and ruled on various motions. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for negligent destruction of exculpatory evidence; and (2) did not err in limiting Defendant's cross-examination of a State's witness. View "State v. Wagner" on Justia Law

A peace officer stopped a vehicle Defendant was driving due to the vehicle's excessive speed and a report of drug trafficking. During the stop, the officer had Defendant exit the vehicle so the officer could detect whether the odor of marijuana was present. A large quantity of marijuana was ultimately discovered in the vehicle. The State charged Defendant with felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Defendant unsuccessfully filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer had unlawfully extended the scope of the stop by requiring Defendant to exit the vehicle. Defendant pled guilty to the charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress, as the officer's requirement that Defendant exit the vehicle during the traffic stop did not violate Defendant's constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. View "State v. Roy" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of deliberate homicide and solicitation to tamper with physical evidence. The convictions were based on an incident in which a three-year-old died after Defendant shoved her into a wall. For the deliberate homicide conviction, the district court sentenced Defendant to one hundred years incarceration with a twenty-five year parole restriction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly concluded that assault on a minor is a forcible felony under the deliberate homicide statute; and (2) properly denied Defendant's motion in limine to exclude from evidence a portion of the police's videotaped interrogation of Defendant. View "State v. Hicks" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with violating the Privacy in Communications statute by using obscene, lewd, and profane language. The charges arose from an incident in which Defendant called an employee of the county Victim Assistance Program a "fucking cunt" over the telephone. Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge. Defendant appealed and filed a motion to dismiss in the district court. The district court denied the motion, finding (1) Defendant's utterance constituted unprotected speech in the form of "fighting words," and (2) the Privacy in Communications statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's conclusion that Defendant's speech constituted "fighting words," as the interaction was not face-to-face or in a circumstance likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace; and (2) struck the prima facie portion of the Privacy in Communications statute as unconstitutionally overbroad. Remanded to the district court to allow Defendant to withdraw his nolo contendere plea and proceed to trial. View "State v. Dugan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent and partner/family member assault. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) his due process rights were violated when a portion of the trial was not recorded during the State's case in chief and effective appellate review was now unavailable, and (2) the district court erred by admitting evidence of his prior assault on the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the record was of sufficient completeness to afford effective appellate review, Defendant's right to due process was not compromised by the failure to record a portion of the State's case in chief; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that this was an appropriate case for introduction of evidence of a previous assault on the issue of consent and that the relevance of the evidence was not outweighed by unfair prejudice. View "State v. Caswell" on Justia Law