Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant appealed from his conviction in the district court of one count of felony aggravated assault. Appellant argued (1) his conviction should be reversed under the plain error doctrine because law enforcement failed to investigate his claim of justifiable use of force as required by Mont. Code Ann. 45-3-112; and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to move for dismissal of his charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to establish that any alleged failure of law enforcement officials to comply with section 45-3-112 prejudiced his defense requiring the Court to exercise plain error review; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that his counsel's representation was ineffective. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant Bobby Cooksey was convicted of deliberate homicide. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of fifty years in prison with credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly denied Appellant's motion for a new trial; (2) the district court properly excluded Appellant's offered evidence concerning the presence of the drug Paxil in the deceased's blood; (3) the investigation of the crime was conducted in compliance with Mont. Code Ann. 45-12-112; and (4) Appellant failed to establish that the prosecution's statements during closing argument constituted unfairly prejudicial misconduct. View "State v. Cooksey" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony partner or family member assault. The district court designated Defendant a persistent felony offender and committed him to the department of corrections (DOC) for the statutory minimum period of five years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that the complaining witness had a history of a felony forgery charge over a decade before Defendant's trial based on the remoteness in time of the forgery charge and the substantial evidence in the record to support the assault against the witness; and (2) the district court lawfully based its sentence upon Defendant's likelihood of reoffending and the court's desire to rehabilitate him. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Appellant Raul Sanchez appealed a district court order that denied his amended petition for postconviction relief. The issue on appeal was whether the court erred in doing so. Appellant admitted to shooting his girlfriend Alesha in 2004. He objected to the admission of a hearsay statement Alesha made in a handwritten note she addressed "to whom it may concern" and suggested that should tragedy befall her, that she suspected it was at the hands of Appellant. Appellant raised his objection as a violation of the Confrontation Clause. The Montana Supreme Court concluded that while the note constituted hearsay not subject to an exception, its admission was harmless error because the State presented other admissible evidence that proved the same facts. Furthermore. the Court concluded that Appellant forfeited his constitutional right to confront Alesha when he killed her. Appellant filed his application for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to appeal the Montana Supreme Court's confrontation decision to the United States Supreme Court. The district court denied Appellant's application for relief. Finding "overwhelming" evidence to support Appellant's conviction and that there was no error by his counsel for "failing" to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of relief. View "Sanchez v. Montana" on Justia Law

Chris Otto appealed a district court's order that denied his motion to dismiss his felony driving under the influence (DUI) charge. The issue on appeal was whether the district court correctly determined that Otto's three prior DUI-related convictions supported the enhancement of his most recent DUI to a felony. Upon review, the Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, and affirmed the district court's decision. View "Montana v. Otto" on Justia Law

Darla Edward appealed a district court order that ordered her to pay restitution following a collision between her car and a bicyclist, and the ensuing court trial and sentencing. She raised four issues on appeal: (1) she contended the district court erred when he held that the jury should have determined causation; (2) the evidence in the record did not support the amount of restitution she was ordered to pay; (3) her rights constitutional rights to a jury and a fair trial were violated; (4) she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no error with the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court in all respects. View "City of Billings v. Edward" on Justia Law

Ralph Jentile appealed a district court decision that ordered him to pay for the repairs to two Whitefish Police Department patrol cars that collided with each other while pursuing Jentile. Jentile raised two issues on appeal: (1) whether the amount of restitution Jentile was ordered to pay should be reduced because of the alleged comparative negligence of the officer involved in the accident; and (2) whether Jentile's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to specifically argue that the amount of restitution should have been reduced because of the comparative negligence of the officer involved in the accident. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, agreeing that the district court should have taken the officer's negligence into consideration when arriving at the restitution amount. View "City of Whitefish v. Jentile" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Daniel John Paulsrud of deliberate homicide with a dangerous weapon in 2011. The district court sentenced Paulsrud to 110 years in the Montana State Prison without the possibility of parole. Paulsrud challenged the parole restriction, requesting that his sentence be vacated. The issues on appeal before the Supreme Court were: (1) did the District Court impose an illegal sentence by restricting the Defendant's eligibility for parole?; and, (2) does a life sentence without parole based on the nature of the crime constitute cruel and unusual punishment? The Court answered both questions in the negative and affirmed the district court. View "Montana v. Paulsrud" on Justia Law

Gordon Sees The Ground, Jr. appealed a district court's order that denied his petition for postconviction relief. In 2008, Sees The Ground was convicted of felony DUI after Billings police officers found him slumped over the steering wheel of a car with the ignition key in the on position, the headlights on, and parked partially in the traffic lane. Sees The Ground appealed the conviction and the Supreme Court affirmed. Sees The Ground was subsequently charged with and convicted of perjury based upon the testimony he gave at his DUI trial. Sees The Ground testified at the DUI trial that Orrie Plainbull had driven the car to the location where Sees The Ground was later found behind the wheel. Sees The Ground appealed the perjury conviction but the appeal was withdrawn. Sees The Ground claimed in his postconviction relief petition that the prosecution in his DUI trial withheld material information about a witness who called 911 to report Sees The Ground slumped over in the vehicle. Sees The Ground claims that the prosecution withheld information that Wood also witnessed two men in a car and saw the passenger get out, fall on the sidewalk, and injure himself while the vehicle drove away. The injured man proved to be Orrie Plainbull (the person Sees the Ground claimed was driving which was the basis of his perjured testimony) and the vehicle that drove away was the one in which police later found Sees The Ground slumped over the steering wheel. Having reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal the Court concluded that Sees The Ground did not meet his burden of persuasion and that the District Court properly denied relief. View "Sees the Ground v. Montana" on Justia Law

A jury found Jared Rosling guilty of deliberate homicide, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, and criminal possession of dangerous drugs on October 18, 2004. Attorney Randi Hood represented Rosling throughout his criminal proceedings. The district court sentenced Rosling to life in prison without parole for the homicide conviction. The court imposed concurrent sentences for the other convictions. Rosling filed a notice of appeal. The court appointed attorney William Hooks as Rosling's appellate counsel. Rosling appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss charges for insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed Rosling's convictions and sentences. The issues on appeal before the Supreme Court concerned whether Rosling received ineffective assistance of counsel during both his trial and appeal. Finding none, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Rosling v. Montana" on Justia Law