Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ryan Gabriel appealed an Eleventh Judicial District Court order affirming the Justice Court’s order of protection in favor of Kai Groenke, an attorney for Gabriel’s former partner. Gabriel had sent a series of threatening and harassing emails to Groenke, including threats of professional disciplinary action, accusations of mental illness, and threats of violence. Groenke obtained a temporary order of protection, which Gabriel violated by continuing to send harassing communications.The Justice Court held a hearing where Groenke, her father Fritz, and her husband testified about Gabriel’s threatening behavior and its impact on Groenke’s mental health and safety. Gabriel argued that his communications were provoked by Groenke and that he was the victim of harassment. The Justice Court found Gabriel’s behavior to be consistent with stalking and granted a ten-year order of protection.Gabriel appealed to the District Court, which reviewed the case and affirmed the Justice Court’s decision. Gabriel then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and upheld the lower courts' decisions. The court found that Gabriel’s conduct met the statutory definition of stalking, causing substantial emotional distress and fear for safety. The court rejected Gabriel’s arguments about the relevance of the Oregon trial court’s stay and his claims of provocation. The court also declined to address Gabriel’s First Amendment argument, as it was raised for the first time in his reply brief. The Supreme Court affirmed the Justice Court’s order of protection. View "Groenke v. Gabriel" on Justia Law

Richard Edward Paul died intestate on October 3, 2022, leaving behind four daughters: Richann L. Ray, Dawn M. Paul Charron, Shelbi L. Paul, and Danita J. Paul. Richann was appointed as the Personal Representative of the Estate with the consent of her sisters. The Estate's significant asset was a cabin in Lincoln, Montana. The heirs could not agree on the disposition of the cabin, leading to conflict. Shelbi filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, alleging that Richann intended to sell the cabin contrary to their parents' wishes. The District Court denied the motion and ordered mediation for any disputed issues.The heirs continued to discuss the cabin's disposition, and Shelbi filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement based on email communications, which the District Court denied, finding no valid settlement agreement. The heirs proceeded to mediation, resulting in a General Release and Mediated Settlement Agreement, which outlined a procedure for selling the cabin to one or more heirs within 30 days of an appraisal. The cabin was appraised at $234,000, but none of the heirs submitted a bid within the 30-day period. Richann listed the cabin for sale and later filed a motion to approve its sale for $106,100, considering the estimated repair costs. Shelbi opposed the motion, arguing the cabin was not fairly marketed.The Montana Eighth Judicial District Court approved the sale, finding the Agreement resolved all issues and the sale price was reasonable and in the best interest of the Estate. Shelbi filed motions to reconsider, which the District Court denied. Shelbi appealed the order approving the sale.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision, concluding that the Agreement did not address the situation where no heir qualified to purchase the cabin within the specified time. The Court found that Richann, as Personal Representative, had the statutory authority to sell the cabin and that the sale was reasonable and in the best interest of the Estate. View "In re Estate of Paul" on Justia Law

Jonathan Partain left his cell phone in his 15-year-old daughter's room and remotely triggered it to record her while she was changing clothes. His daughter discovered the recording, showed it to her mother, deleted it, and confronted Partain, who admitted to his actions. The State charged Partain with Sexual Abuse of Children and Surreptitious Visual Observation or Recordation in a Residence. Partain pleaded guilty to Sexual Abuse of Children in exchange for the dismissal of the second charge and an amendment to the first charge to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence.The Fourth Judicial District Court accepted Partain's guilty plea and dismissed the second charge without prejudice. However, at sentencing, the court dismissed the Sexual Abuse of Children charge sua sponte, reinstated the previously dismissed charge of Surreptitious Visual Observation or Recordation, and found Partain guilty of that charge. The court imposed a two-year deferred sentence for the misdemeanor charge. The State appealed, arguing that the court had no authority to dismiss the guilty plea and reinstate the dismissed charge.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and held that the District Court had no statutory authority to dismiss the felony charge after accepting Partain's guilty plea and to amend or reinstate the dismissed misdemeanor charge. The court found that the District Court's actions violated the separation of powers by usurping the role of the prosecutor in charging decisions. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing on the Sexual Abuse of Children conviction. View "State v. Partain" on Justia Law

In 1982, William Clark was convicted of eight counts of sexual intercourse without consent and was designated a dangerous offender, receiving a 30-year prison sentence for each count, to run concurrently. After being paroled, Clark sought relief from the sex offender registration requirement in 2005, which was denied by the district court. The court found that Clark was not eligible for relief under the 2005 Sexual and Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA) because the victim was compelled to submit by force. This decision was affirmed on appeal.Clark again petitioned for relief in 2024, citing the Montana Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hinman, which held that the 2007 SVORA amendments were punitive and could not be applied retroactively. The State opposed, arguing that Clark remained subject to the 2005 SVORA requirements, which mandated lifetime registration. The Ninth Judicial District Court denied Clark's petition, maintaining that he must continue to register for life under the 2005 SVORA.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the lower court's decision. The Court held that the 2005 SVORA, which was determined to be a civil regulatory scheme and not punitive, could be applied retroactively. Since Clark's offenses occurred before the 2007 amendments, he remained subject to the 2005 SVORA, which required lifetime registration due to the nature of his offense involving force. The Court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that there was no violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws. View "Clark v. State" on Justia Law

Derik L. Seymour was using a cable crossover exercise machine at the Bulldog Athletic Recreation Center at the University of Montana-Western when the cable snapped, allegedly causing him severe injury. Seymour filed a complaint against the State of Montana and the University of Montana-Western, alleging negligence and negligence-premises liability for improper maintenance of the exercise equipment.The First Judicial District Court found that Seymour failed to present admissible evidence that the State breached its standard of care and granted the State’s motion for summary judgment. Seymour's counsel withdrew, and he proceeded pro se. The court extended discovery deadlines multiple times due to Seymour's failure to respond to the State’s discovery requests. The State filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Seymour had not secured a liability expert to testify at trial. The District Court granted summary judgment, concluding that Seymour had not introduced any admissible evidence that the State breached its duty of care.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Seymour failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the State’s standard of care. The court noted that Seymour did not dispute the necessity of an expert in the District Court and only argued on appeal that an expert was not necessary. The court found that the inspection and maintenance of specialized gym equipment involved technical considerations beyond the common knowledge of lay jurors, requiring expert testimony. The court concluded that Seymour did not present any evidence regarding the State’s standard of care, an essential element of his negligence claims, and affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for the State. View "Seymour v. State" on Justia Law

Livorio Loera was charged with felony vehicular homicide while under the influence after a two-vehicle accident on Interstate 90 resulted in the death of Jerome Socheath. Loera drove the wrong way on the highway and collided with an SUV, causing it to roll and eject Socheath, who died three days later. Loera was found intoxicated and with a blood alcohol content of .124 several hours after the crash. Evidence found in Loera's car included open and unopened alcohol containers and self-help books on addiction.The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, excluded evidence regarding Socheath's seat belt use, deeming it irrelevant to Loera's conduct. The court also admitted evidence of unopened alcohol and self-help books found in Loera's trunk, considering it relevant to Loera's negligence. Loera appealed these decisions, arguing that the seat belt evidence was necessary for his causation defense and that the trunk evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the seat belt evidence, as it was irrelevant to determining Loera's conduct and causation. The court also found that the transaction rule did not apply to the seat belt evidence. However, the Supreme Court determined that the District Court erred in admitting the trunk evidence, as it was irrelevant to Loera's negligence and intoxication. Despite this error, the court concluded it was harmless due to the overwhelming admissible evidence proving Loera's guilt. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed Loera's conviction. View "State v. Loera" on Justia Law

Leslie Dean Ernst pleaded guilty to five felony counts of Privacy in Communications in violation of Montana law. He later sought to withdraw his guilty pleas and reduce two of the felony convictions to misdemeanors, which the District Court denied. Ernst appealed the decision.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court initially sentenced Ernst to 25 years in prison with a 15-year parole restriction. Ernst appealed, and the case was remanded for resentencing due to a missing transcript. Before resentencing, Ernst moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, arguing that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional based on a prior court decision. The District Court denied his motion, finding that Ernst had not shown his prior convictions were unconstitutional. Ernst was resentenced to the same 25-year term with a 15-year parole restriction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Ernst was charged, convicted, and sentenced under the constitutional portion of the Privacy in Communications statute. The court found that the charging documents, plea agreement, and sentencing did not rely on the unconstitutional prima facie provision. The court also determined that Ernst's guilty plea colloquy was sufficient to establish his intent to harass, annoy, or offend his victims, as required by the statute.Additionally, the court held that Ernst failed to provide direct evidence that his prior convictions were unconstitutional. The presumption of regularity attached to his prior convictions, and Ernst did not meet his burden to show they were invalid. Consequently, the court affirmed the District Court's denial of Ernst's motions and upheld his sentence. View "State v. Ernst" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was involved in an incident where he confronted two men spraying herbicide in a park, attempted to disable their equipment with a knife, and resisted arrest when police arrived. He was charged with multiple misdemeanors, including obstructing, resisting arrest, criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The defendant pleaded not guilty and was released on the condition that he appear at all scheduled hearings.The Municipal Court warned the defendant that failure to appear at the final pretrial hearing would result in a waiver of his right to a jury trial. The defendant failed to appear at the final pretrial hearing, and the court subsequently waived his jury trial and set the matter for a bench trial. The defendant did not object to this waiver or to proceeding with a bench trial. He was found guilty of all charges except for possession of drug paraphernalia, which was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. The defendant was sentenced to consecutive suspended sentences for the remaining charges.The defendant appealed to the Fourth Judicial District Court, arguing that the Municipal Court erred in waiving his jury trial right. The District Court affirmed the Municipal Court's decision, concluding that the defendant had been adequately informed of the consequences of failing to appear and had effectively waived his right to a jury trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and held that the Municipal Court did not commit plain error in conducting a bench trial. The court found that the defendant had been properly notified of the waiver consequences and had not objected to the waiver or the bench trial. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the defendant's waiver of his jury trial right was knowing and voluntary. View "City of Missoula v. Charlie" on Justia Law

Petitioners, Choteau Acantha Publishing and Montana Free Press, claimed that the closure of the Governor’s Advisory Council meeting with judicial applicants violated open meeting laws. The Advisory Council, appointed by Governor Greg Gianforte, was tasked with interviewing applicants for a judicial vacancy in Montana’s Ninth Judicial District. The meeting was closed to the public by the Chair, Jennifer Stutz, after the applicants asserted their privacy rights.The District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, presided by Judge Mike Menahan, granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Petitioners. The court determined that the Advisory Council’s closure of the meeting violated open meeting laws, as the applicants for a judicial position do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their qualifications. The court also found that the meeting was improperly closed for its entirety without identifying specific privacy interests, thus failing to perform the required balancing test.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that the Advisory Council’s blanket closure of the meeting was overbroad and violated the statutory procedure for closing meetings. The court emphasized that the closure should be limited to the time when the discussion relates to individual privacy matters and that the presiding officer must articulate a rationale for closure. The court did not address the broader constitutional issue of whether judicial applicants have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as the statutory violation was sufficient to resolve the case. The dismissal of Petitioners’ claim to void the Advisory Council’s actions was also affirmed. View "Choteau Acantha Publishing v. Gianforte" on Justia Law

In October 2019, Khrysta Turk reported to the Kalispell Police Department that her stepson, L.S., then 13 years old, had inappropriately touched her four-year-old daughter, E.T. L.S. admitted to the inappropriate touching during a police interview. Following the report, L.S.'s mother placed him in various residential treatment facilities for a total of 728 days. The investigation concluded in December 2019, and the matter was referred to the Eleventh Judicial District Court Office of Youth Services in January 2020. The Youth Court decided to monitor L.S.'s treatment informally without initiating formal proceedings.The State filed a formal petition on January 3, 2022, alleging that L.S. committed acts consistent with felony sexual assault. L.S. was appointed counsel, and the District Court set a trial date. L.S. moved for a continuance due to a discovery violation by the State, which delayed the trial. L.S. also filed motions to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial and for the discovery violation. The District Court denied both motions, noting that the case was atypical due to L.S.'s mother's proactive placement in treatment facilities. The trial was rescheduled multiple times, and L.S. eventually admitted to the allegations while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motions.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and conducted a speedy trial analysis. The Court determined that the delay of 329 days from the filing of the petition to L.S.'s admission was not extraordinary given the serious nature of the allegations. The Court found that the delays were either institutional or due to L.S.'s request for a continuance. L.S. consistently asserted his right to a speedy trial but failed to demonstrate that the delay prejudiced his defense. The Court concluded that no speedy trial violation occurred and affirmed the District Court's denial of L.S.'s motion to dismiss. View "In re L.S." on Justia Law