Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged by information with numerous sex offenses. Defendant filed a motion to change venue based on the amount of pretrial publicity surrounding the case. The district court denied the motion. The court also denied Defendant’s motion to suppress voice identification evidence. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of twenty-seven charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for change of venue, as Defendant failed to show anything beyond a bare allegation that the community was infected with prejudice; and (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress voice identification evidence, as the facts indicated sufficient indicia of reliability to allow the voice identification into evidence. View "State v. Griego" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with seven sex offenses and one offense of tampering with evidence. Less than one week before trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, contending that several motions recently filed by the State were untimely and that the State committed discovery violations. The district court conducted an emergency in-chambers conference that afternoon, but Defendant did not appear at the conference. During the conference, the district court vacated the trial date and continued the jury trial to a later date. The district court then denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of sexual assault. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion dismiss, arguing that he was prejudiced by his absence at the emergency hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no reasonable possibility that Defendant’s absence from the emergency conference caused him prejudice. View "State v. Blake" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his two minor children, a girl and a boy. After a termination hearing at which Father failed to appear, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights, concluding that reasonable efforts made been made given the need to protect the children’s health and safety. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that the Department made reasonable efforts to prevent the necessity of removing the two children, as required by Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-423. View "In re A.G." on Justia Law

Defendant was given a citation for violating Mont. Code Ann. 61-6-301(4), which prohibits operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance. At a bench trial before the justice court, Defendant’s attorney moved to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. The justice court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty. The district court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the justice court’s decision denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge for insufficient evidence, as there was sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant violated section 61-6-301(4). View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Macks and the Andersons owned adjacent properties. When the Macks discovered that a dam existed on the Mack Ditch, which crossed the Andersons’ property to the Mack property, that diverted water to a pond on the Anderson’s property, the Macks filed a complaint against the Andersons alleging violations of Mont. Code Ann. 70-17-112 and seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. The district judge issued a TRO restraining the Andersons from interfering with the Macks’ access to the ditch. The parties entered into a stipulation that the TRO should remain in effect until further court order. The district court later found that the Macks were entitled to the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court made proper findings and clearly reserved final adjudication on the merits in the order and did not abuse its discretion in the preliminary injunction determination. View "Mack v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Michael Mandell and Bayliss Ward and Bayliss Architects, P.C. (Bayliss) agreed that Bayliss would provide architectural and construction services for Mandell’s home. Mandell refused to pay Bayliss’s final invoice, and Bayliss filed a construction lien on the property. Mandell initiated this action stating counts of breach of contract, declaratory judgment that the lien was invalid, and quiet title to the property. Bayliss counterclaimed for foreclosure of the construction lien, quantum meruit, and breach of contract. The district court partially granted Mandell’s claim for declaratory relief, ruling that because Bayliss failed to obtain a written contract for construction services, the contract was void and the lien for those services was invalid. After a trial, the district court granted relief in quantum meruit and awarded attorney fees to Bayliss. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the district court (1) did not err in granting equitable relief in quantum meruit, despite violation of the statutory requirement that residential construction contracts be in writing; and (2) erred in awarding attorney fees for the quantum meruit claim. Remanded. View "Mandell v. Bayliss Ward" on Justia Law

Initiative No. 181 (I-181) proposed to enact the “Montana Biomedical Research Authority Act.” The Secretary of State determined that sufficient signatures had been submitted to qualify I-181 for the November 8, 2016 general election ballot. Petitioners filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief requesting that the Supreme Court exercise its original jurisdiction to declare I-181 unconstitutional on its face and to enjoin its certification for the November 2016 general election ballot. The Supreme Court denied Petitioners’ request without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate civil action should the measure become law, as I-181 was not a “law.” View "Montana AFL-CIO v. McCulloch" on Justia Law

After a hearing at which all parties were represented by counsel, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her two children and granted Stepmother’s petition for adoption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in declining to address Mother’s constitutional arguments; (2) the district court did not err in finding that Mother was unfit; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights and allowing Stepmother to adopt the children; and (4) Mother was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. View "In re A.W.S." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of attempted deliberate homicide, three counts of felony criminal mischief, and six counts of misdemeanor criminal mischief. After unsuccessfully seeking postconviction relief pursuant to two successive petitions, Defendant filed a third petition for postconviction relief, claiming newly discovered evidence. The district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant’s newly discovered evidence claim; and (2) the charging process used in Defendant’s criminal case was consistent with the 1972 Montana Constitution and Montana statutes. View "Kenfield v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with escape in Powell County. The State later stipulated that venue was proper in Yellowstone County. The Powell County District Court subsequently granted the State’s motion to dismiss the escape charge and dismissed the case without prejudice. Nearly seven months later, the State filed the escape charges in Yellowstone County. Before trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the case for lack of a speedy trial, alleging that his right to a speedy trial had attached upon his initial appearance on the Powell County charge. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant’s right to a speedy trial had not attached until the charges were re-filed in Yellowstone County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in calculating the length of the delay, as the speedy trial clock began running when charges first were filed in Powell County; (2) the time period from the dismissal of the charge initially filed against Defendant in Powell County to the filing of the charge in Yellowstone County is not counted for purposes of determining the length of the delay; and (3) the delay in this case did not establish a constitutional speedy trial violation. View "State v. Butterfly" on Justia Law