Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After an agent with the Tri-Agency Safe Trails Task Force purchased quantities of marijuana from Defendants in excess of what was legal under the Medical Marijuana Act, law enforcement arrested Defendants. Officers executed search warrants for Defendants' vehicles, their residence, and the garage Defendants frequented, retrieving four times the amount of marijuana Defendants were allowed to possess as caregivers and patients under the Act. Defendants were charged with several drug-related counts. Defendants filed a joint motion to suppress and dismiss, arguing that the state engaged in "outrageous government conduct" by obtaining evidence against them in violation of their federal due process rights. The district court granted the motion because the agent broke numerous laws under the banner of law enforcement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the agent's conduct stopped short of violating the fundamental fairness shocking to the universal sense of justice mandated by the due process clause, the district court erred in dismissing Defendants' charges based on the outrageous government conduct defense. View "State v. Fitzpatrick" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted theft and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in finding a sufficient chain of custody for the admission of latent fingerprint evidence and forensic analysis. At issue was two fingerprint cards used to take the prints. In specific, in contention was discrepancies between dates written on the back of the cards and their storage in a law enforcement officer's patrol car and office. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the State adequately established the chain of custody of the prints cards, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the latent print evidence. View "State v. McCoy" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case were individuals who were in committed same-sex relationships. Plaintiffs sued the State, contending that there was a statutory structure in Montana law that prohibited them from enjoying significant relationships and family protections and obligations provided to similarly-situated different-sex couples who marry. Plaintiffs expressly did not challenge Montana law's restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples and did not seek the opportunity to marry. Instead, Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the State's failure to provide them access to the statutory scheme available to different-sex couples denied them the rights guaranteed by Mont. Const. art II. The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss, noting that Plaintiffs did not seek the declaration of the unconstitutionality of a specific statute but rather a direction to the legislature to enact a statutory arrangement, which was unprecedented in Montana law. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding Plaintiffs' requested relief exceeded the bounds of a justiciable controversy; but (2) Plaintiffs should be afforded the opportunity to amend their complaint. View "Donaldson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and one count of sexual assault. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances presented here, the district court's application of Montana's rape shield statute did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial under the Montana and United States Constitutions; and (2) the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss Counts I and IV on grounds that the State failed to prove venue, as the State showed that the only rational conclusion to be drawn from the facts and testimony was that the crime was committed in the county alleged. View "State v. Patterson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to the felony offense of criminal possession with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him to a three-year deferred imposition of sentence. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, contending that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and dismiss because a drug task force agent did not have probable cause to believe a crime was occurring in his residence, and thus there was no basis for the agent to contact Defendant and request to search his residence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress and dismiss, as (1) the information Defendant's neighbor provided to law enforcement officers was reliable; and (2) the court's findings regarding Defendant's consent to the initial search of his home and the court's findings regarding the validity of the search warrant were supported by substantial credible evidence and were not clearly erroneous. View "State v. Deshaw" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of incest. The district court sentenced Defendant to 100 years in the Montana State Prison with a possibility of parole after fifty years. The district court designated Defendant a Level 3 sexual offender. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to conduct cross-examination of the State' witnesses at the sentencing hearing or failing to call any witnesses on Defendant's behalf; and (2) trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by making no alternative sentencing recommendation. View "State v. Peart" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to felony arson for setting fire to a car and two dumpsters. After a sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to a four-year suspended DOC commitment and required him to pay $1600 in restitution. It further imposed recommended probationary conditions, including that Defendant register as a violent offender and complete anger management classes and chemical dependency and mental health evaluations. Defendant challenged the sentencing condition requiring him to register as a violent offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's sentencing condition requiring that Defendant register as a violent offender did not violate his constitutional right to privacy, as whatever limited expectation of privacy Defendant had as a violent offender in his whereabouts and residential information, the State's compelling interest in requiring that he register justified the enactment of the statute requiring registration. View "State v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Shortly after Defendant was charged with DUI, she notified the police department that she believed she had been given a "date rape" drug that caused her impairment. Before trial commenced, Defendant claimed she would assert the involuntary intoxication defense to show she did not commit a voluntary act by driving. The municipal court granted the City's motion to prevent Defendant from claiming involuntary intoxication as a defense and from calling witnesses about the use of "date rape" drugs in the City. The district court affirmed, concluding that involuntary intoxication can only be used where the mental state of the defendant is an element of the crime. Defendant appealed, contending that the lower court erred by failing to apply the voluntary act element of Montana's DUI statute. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the lower court erred by precluding Defendant from raising automatism as an affirmative defense to the DUI charge; and (2) if Defendant was able to lay the proper foundation, she could elicit from certain law enforcement officers evidence regarding their personal knowledge, opinions, and statements regarding whether Defendant was unknowingly drugged, and voluntarily drove a vehicle. View "City of Missoula v. Paffhausen" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted sexual intercourse without consent, a felony. The district court sentenced Defendant to Montana State Prison for a term of fifteen years, with five suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not violate Defendant's right to due process by excluding evidence of alleged sexual conversations between the complainant and Defendant and photos of third parties allegedly sent by the complainant to Defendant on the basis that they were irrelevant or more prejudicial than probative under the rules of evidence; and (2) Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was better examined within a postconviction relief proceeding. View "State v. Bishop" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of deliberate homicide stemming from the shooting death of his former roommate. On appeal, Defendant contended that the district court erred by instructing the jury it was prohibited from considering Defendant's intoxication when rendering its verdict in accordance with Mont. Code Ann. 45-2-203 because the statute violated a criminal defendant's due process right to present a defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the instructions given by the court fully and fairly instructed the jury on the applicable law and did not prejudice Defendant's right to present a defense, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving the instruction to the jury. View "State v. Myran" on Justia Law