Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving her right to appeal the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress. Defendant appealed, arguing that her motion to suppress should have been granted because she was illegally seized when she admitted she had contraband in her purse and consented to a search and, thus, that her admission and consent must be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal seizure. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant and reversed, holding that no objective facts justified the seizure of Defendant, and therefore, the seizure was illegal and all evidence obtained as a result of it must be suppressed. Remanded. View "State v. Emerson" on Justia Law

Defendant’s wife obtained an order of protection prohibiting all contact between Defendant and his wife. Thereafter, Defendant was charged with four counts of violating an order of protection for calling his wife four times from between approximately 4 p.m. and 11 p.m. on November 6, 2012. Defendant moved to dismiss all four charges against him or, in the alternative, to dismiss three of the four charges as part of the same transaction pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-410. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, the parties disputed whether Defendant’s telephone calls constituted conduct that was part of the same transaction and, assuming that they did, whether the calls met the exception under section 46-11-410(2)(e). The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the prosecutor acted within her discretion in charging Defendant with four counts of violating the order of protection. View "State v. Strong" on Justia Law

A.M.M. was the mother of eight adult children, including Timothy McCann. Timothy filed a petition requesting that he be appointed A.M.M’s sole guardian and conservator. After a trial, the district court found that A.M.M. was an incapacitated person, appointed attorney Casey Emerson as guardian and appointed Timothy, Timothy’s brother, and attorney Douglas Wold as joint conservators. The district court later awarded attorney fees to Wold and Emerson. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by denying Timothy’s motion to vacate, nor did the court err in its ruling on any of the issues therein; (2) did not abuse its discretion by striking Timothy’s reply brief for untimely service; (3) did not abuse its discretion when it limited the powers of the conservators to act on behalf of A.M.M. in her role as a corporate director or signatory; and (4) did not abuse its discretion by ordering payment of attorney fees to either Wold or Emerson. Lastly, Timothy’s allegations of attorney misconduct were not properly before the Court. View "In re Guardianship of A.M.M." on Justia Law

Howard H. Mills (the Decedent) died, survived by three sons - Howard W. (Howard), John, and David. On August 21, 2014, Howard petitioned for formal probate of Decedent’s will and appointment of a personal representative. The district court informed the parties that any objections may be filed within fourteen days, by October 6, 2014. Neither John nor David filed an objection by the district court’s deadline. On October 15, 2014, Howard moved the district court for entry of default against John and David for failure to object to the petition. Before an actual default was entered, John and David each filed motions to set aside the default. After a hearing at which neither John nor David was present, the district court issued an order denying John and David’s requests to set aside the defaults. The district court subsequently appointed Howard as personal representative and admitted the will to formal probate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion by determining that David failed to establish good cause for not filing timely and potentially meritorious objections to the initiation of the formal probate proceedings. View "In re Estate of Mills" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of theft, a felony, and was sentenced as a persistent felony offender to a term of twenty-five years at Montana State Prison, with fifteen suspended, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $25,000. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court declines to exercise plain error review of Defendant’s challenge to the district court’s failure to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that Defendant acted with the purpose to deprive; and (2) Defendant has not established a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure to object to the jury instructions as given by the court. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of deliberate homicide and sentenced to forty years in prison. Defendant later filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he had discovered new evidence warranting a new trial. The district court denied Defendant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court failed adequately to address Defendant’s newly discovered evidence claim, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the district court erred by determining, on this record, that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because the court misapprehended the law and misapprehended the effect of Defendant’s evidence. View "Wilkes v. State" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned three separate orders entered by the district court during proceedings resulting in the termination of Mother’s parental rights to her three minor children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in rescinding the Office of the State Public Defender’s (OPD) appointment of counsel for Mother’s youngest child and denying OPD’s motion to appoint counsel after the termination hearing; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that Mother’s conduct or condition made her unfit to parent and was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; (3) the Department of Health and Human Services made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the children and to reunite Mother with her children; and (4) Mother was not denied her due process rights in the termination proceedings. View "In re T.D.H." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of negligent homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in permitting Dianna Nelson to testify as a witness at trial because, although the State provided untimely notice of its intention to use Nelson as a material witness, Defendant was aware of the nature of Nelson’s testimony and of the State’s ongoing efforts to locate Nelson; and (2) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, as a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of negligent homicide. View "State v. Bowen" on Justia Law

In 2002, Defendant was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent. In 2010, the victim recanted his accusations in writing. Based upon those recantations, Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief seeking a new trial. The district court denied the petition. The court predicated its decision upon the concurring opinion in State v. Beach (Beach II) and decided that the victim’s recantation did not definitively establish that Defendant was innocent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in grounding its rejection of Defendant’s petition upon the Beach II concurrence; and (2) a district court shall apply the statutory test set forth in Mont. Code Ann. 46-21-102(2) in determining the disposition of a timely filed petition for postconviction relief based upon newly discovered evidence and shall do so in accordance with the provisions of section 46-21-102(2) and -201 and this opinion. Remanded. View "Marble v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an employee of BNSF Railway, sued BNSF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, alleging that BNSF negligently assigned him to work that caused cumulative trauma injuries to his musculoskeletal system, particularly his lower back. The jury returned a verdict finding that Appellant’s cumulative trauma claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that BNSF’s prejudicial questions and arguments deprived him of a fair trial. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that cumulative prejudice from BNSF’s unlawful appeal to the passions and prejudices of the jury denied Appellant a fair trial. View "Anderson v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law