Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming in part and reversing in part a decision of the Department of Labor and Industry's Office of Administrative Hearings on Elizabeth Mays' wage claim against Sam's Inc., holding the district court's judgment was without error.Mays filed a wage claim against Sam's with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry, alleging that she was misclassified as an independent contract and was owed to employment wages for the hours she worked. After the Independent Contractor Central Unit determined that Mays was an employee the Wage and Hour Unit determined that Mays was owed $33.43 in wages. The district court reversed the agency's determinations that Sam's was entitled to an offset for Mays' tips and that Sam's was not required to pay a penalty. Mays appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court's order constituted a final order in a contested case for which judicial review was available; (2) the district court did not err by affirming the agency's determination of the terms of Mays' employment; and (3) the district court did not err by affirming the agency's finding that Sam's was not obligated to reimburse Mays for fees. View "Wage Claim of Mays v. Sam's Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of felony sexual assault, holding that counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to an instruction that a person under the age of sixteen is incapable of consent as a matter of law because the age of consent for sexual assault is fourteen years old.During trial, the court instructed the jury, without differentiating between the charged offenses of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault, that a person under the age of sixteen is incapable of consent as a matter of law. The victim in this case was fourteen years old at the time of the alleged offense. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the instruction allowed the jury to convict Defendant solely on evidence of the victim's age, and had trial counsel offered and argued a separate sexual assault "without consent" instruction, the result may have been different. View "State v. Resh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted deliberate homicide, aggravated burglary, and tampering with or fabricating evidence, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant did not meet his burden to convince the Court that it was necessary to review the district court's note on the verdict form regarding alternative lesser included offenses under the plain error doctrine; (2) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of tampering with or fabricating evidence; and (3) Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Daniels" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant for felony sexual assault without consent, holding that the district court abused its discretion by not continuing the sentencing hearing.The district court was presented with Defendant's unopposed motion to continue the sentencing hearing to accommodate the schedule of a key, and only, witness. The district court denied the motion, noting only that the motion was Defendant's fourth motion to continue the sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing, holding that Defendant's request for a continuance was reasonable under the circumstances, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily in not granting Defendant's unopposed motion to continue the sentencing hearing. View "State v. Webber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying the petition filed by the Department of Public Health and Human Services to modify Kevin Capser's sentence, holding that the court's decision to deny the petition was an abuse of discretion.Capser, who suffered from schizophrenia, shot and killed his father. Capser was found guilty of deliberate homicide but that he suffered from a mental disease or disorder that rendered him unable to appreciate the criminality of his behavior or to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. Capser was Department of Public Health and Human Services for one hundred years with thirty years suspended, with an additional ten years for the use of a weapon. The forensic review board later concluded that Capser no longer represented a substantial risk of harm to himself or others. The Department then filed a petition for review of sentence. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Capser remained a danger to himself and others. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court's decision was based on a generalized apprehension that something unfortunate might occur in the future, and therefore, the denial of the petition was not within the court's discretion. View "In re DPHHS Petition Concerning Kevin J. Capser" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court ruling that the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had illegally renewed a permit allowing Western Energy Company to discharge rain and snow water into surrounding ditches and creeks from its Rosebud Coal Mine in Colstrip, Montana, holding that further fact-finding was required.In 2012, DEQ renewed a permit, which was modified in 2014, for Western Energy to discharge pollutants contained in waters that were created by ongoing precipitation-driven events. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that the DEQ's permit renewal violated the Montana Water Quality Act and federal Clean Water Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Montana Board of Environmental Review was not required to make a new stream classification for the Yellowstone River drainage; (2) DEQ can lawfully allow the mine to monitor a sample of the discharges that are representative of the precipitation water being released, but the district court must determine whether those releases are actually representative of the mining and discharge activities that are taking place at the mine; and (3) remand was required to determine whether a "pollutant-impaired stream" should be monitored with a higher environmental standard than the current permit requires. View "Montana Environmental Information Center v. Western Energy Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the municipal court's judgments of conviction on jury trial of misdemeanor criminal trespass, assault, resisting arrest, and obstructing a peace officer, holding that the municipal court's evidentiary rulings challenged on appeal were without error.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the municipal court erred in subjecting his asserted "substantial need" for the arresting officers' personnel files under Mont. Code Ann. 46-15-322(5) to balancing with their constitutional right to privacy, (2) the municipal court erred in excluding examining physician testimony regarding the nature and extent of injuries sustained by Defendant incident to arrest, and (3) insufficient evidence supported his obstructing a peace officer conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the municipal court correctly denied Defendant's request for discovery of the arresting officers' pre-incident personnel records; (2) the municipal court did not err in excluding Defendant's proffered physician testimony; and (3) the Court declines to review the sufficiency of the evidence for plain error. View "City of Bozeman v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of deliberate homicide, holding that Defendant was not entitled to his relief on his argument that defense counsel was ineffective.On appeal, Defendant argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by objecting to a jury instruction that accomplice testimony must be viewed with distrust and must be corroborated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record was not sufficiently developed to determine whether Defendant's objection was a reasonable tactical decision. Consequently, the Court concluded that Defendant must pursue his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a properly presented petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. Wittal" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute the Supreme Court reversed in part the district court's determination that Carla King was not entitled to her taxable costs and her claimed nontaxable costs after a jury found in favor of King, holding that the district court erred in concluding that King was not entitled to her claimed nontaxable costs.King was injured when her vehicle was hit by a drunk driver. King sought underinsured motorist coverage from State Farm, but King and State Farm did not agree on the value of King's claim. State Farm had offered to settle the claim for $20,000. The jury found that King had suffered damages in the amount of $410,000. The district court entered judgment against State Farm in the amount of the policy limit of $50,000. The district court awarded King $20,000 in attorney fees and denied King's claimed litigation expenses and costs. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court correctly held that King was not entitled to her taxable costs as provided by Mont. Code Ann. 25-10-201 because they were not timely filed; and (2) the district court erred in concluding that King was not entitled to her claimed nontaxable costs because those litigation costs were part of the insurance exception to the American Rule. View "King v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Vision Net, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to the Montana Department of Revenue (DOR), holding that the district court did not err by holding that the DOR properly centrally assessed Vision Net's property.Vision Net filed a petition for declaratory judgment challenging the DOR's decision to reclassify its property. The district court held that the DOR could properly centrally assess Vision Net's property, resulting in a significant increase in Vision Net's state tax liability. On appeal, Vision Net argued that DOR's central assessment violated its statutory rights and its constitutional rights of equal protection and equalization under Mont. Const. art. II, 4 and art. VII, 3. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly held that Vision Net was subject to central assessment and that Vision Net's constitutional challenge was without merit. View "Vision Net, Inc. v. State, Department of Revenue" on Justia Law