Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2018, Robert Spoklie purchased land neighboring the property of the Paul Phillip Bardos and Mary L. Bardos Revocable Trust (Bardos) near Kalispell, Montana. Spoklie divided his land into smaller parcels for residential development and entered into an Easement Agreement with Bardos, granting mutual easements for access. Spoklie's easement allowed him to use a 60-foot-wide path through Bardos's property for ingress, egress, and utility installation. Spoklie used this easement to transport construction equipment, sometimes parking it temporarily within the easement boundaries, which Bardos contested.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, denied Bardos's request for a preliminary injunction and later granted summary judgment in favor of Spoklie. The court found that Spoklie's activities, including temporary parking and unloading of construction equipment within the easement, were within the scope of the easement agreement. Bardos appealed, arguing that material facts were in dispute and that Spoklie's actions constituted trespass and nuisance.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the easement's language allowed for temporary parking and unloading of construction equipment as reasonably necessary for ingress and egress. The court also found that Spoklie's actions did not constitute trespass or nuisance since they were within the scope of the easement. Additionally, the court noted that the issue of Spoklie's proposed mailbox structure was not ripe for adjudication as no substantial steps had been taken toward its construction. The court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the District Court correctly applied the law. View "Bardos Revocable Trust v. Spoklie" on Justia Law

Laura Marie Obert, a former Broadwater County Commissioner, was investigated by the Montana Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) in 2015 for allegedly receiving unlawful overtime pay and potential ethics violations. In 2016, Obert entered a deferred prosecution agreement with the Assistant Attorney General, agreeing to repay the excess wages and abstain from voting on matters where she had a conflict of interest. In 2019, based on new allegations of violating the agreement, Obert was charged with felony theft and misdemeanor official misconduct. The district court dismissed these charges in 2021, finding Obert had complied with the agreement and there was insufficient evidence for the misconduct charge.Obert then sued the State of Montana and Broadwater County Attorney Cory Swanson, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, due process violations, and malicious prosecution. The First Judicial District Court dismissed her claims, leading to this appeal.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and made several determinations. It reversed the lower court's dismissal of Obert's breach of contract and good faith and fair dealing claims, holding that these claims were not time-barred and did not accrue until the criminal charges were dismissed. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Obert's bad faith claim, finding no special relationship existed between Obert and the State that would support such a claim. The court also upheld the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim, ruling that Swanson was protected by prosecutorial immunity as he acted within his statutory duties. Lastly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the due process claim, concluding that Obert's procedural due process rights were not violated as the State followed proper procedures in charging her and the district court provided an appropriate forum to address the alleged breach of the agreement. View "Obert v State" on Justia Law

D.A. Davidson & Co. initiated an interpleader action to resolve a dispute over funds held in an investment account for Whitefish Masonic Lodge 64. The Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Montana revoked Whitefish Lodge's charter and claimed the funds. Donald Slaybaugh, a member of Whitefish Lodge, contested the revocation and the transfer of funds, arguing that the Grand Lodge did not follow proper procedures.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granted summary judgment in favor of the Grand Lodge, dismissing Slaybaugh's cross claims. The court determined that Slaybaugh lacked standing to bring claims against the Grand Lodge on behalf of Whitefish Lodge or in his individual capacity. The court found that Whitefish Lodge, having had its charter revoked, no longer existed as a legal entity capable of bringing claims. Additionally, the court concluded that Slaybaugh did not have the authority to act on behalf of the Lodge, as he was not an elected officer and his previous authority to oversee the investment account had been revoked.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that Slaybaugh did not have standing to bring claims on behalf of Whitefish Lodge because the Lodge was dissolved and could not appear in litigation. The court also rejected Slaybaugh's argument that he had standing as a fiduciary or under a derivative action, noting that he did not meet the pleading requirements for a derivative action and that his fiduciary authority had been revoked. Finally, the court found no evidence to support claims of fraud or arbitrary action by the Grand Lodge in revoking the Lodge's charter. View "D.A. Davidson v. Slaybaugh" on Justia Law

In this case, Billy Lee Henderson appealed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his 2019 conviction for Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (SIWC). The conviction stemmed from a series of assaults on Jane Doe over five days in April 2018. Henderson was found guilty of multiple related offenses, including witness tampering and protective order violations. He was sentenced to 75 years in prison, with 25 years suspended.Henderson's petition for postconviction relief was based on newly discovered evidence, specifically Doe's recantation of her trial testimony. Doe had initially testified that Henderson forced her to have non-consensual sex, but later, in recorded conversations and an interview, she claimed the intercourse was consensual and that she had been pressured by authorities to testify otherwise. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, denied the petition, finding Doe's recantations inconsistent and lacking credibility, especially given Henderson's history of witness tampering.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the District Court applied the correct standards in assessing the newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the District Court did not err in its evidentiary assessment. The court emphasized that Doe's recantations were not sufficiently credible or weighty to warrant a new trial, especially in light of her inconsistent statements and the context of Henderson's attempts to influence her testimony. The Supreme Court concluded that the District Court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous. View "Henderson v. State" on Justia Law

Richard Shreves, while incarcerated at the Montana State Prison, received medical care and subsequently filed a complaint against Dr. Paul Rees with the Board of Medical Examiners at the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (DLI). The Correctional Health Care Review Team (CHCRT) reviewed the complaint and found no violation of law or practice rules by Dr. Rees, leading to the closure of the complaint without forwarding it to the Board of Medical Examiners. Shreves then petitioned for judicial review, challenging the CHCRT's decision and the lack of detailed findings in their response.The First Judicial District Court dismissed Shreves's petition, concluding that he lacked standing. The court reasoned that the CHCRT process did not implicate Shreves's legal rights, as it was designed to screen complaints for potential disciplinary action against the healthcare provider, not to adjudicate the complainant's rights.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The court held that Shreves did not have standing to petition for judicial review because the statute governing the CHCRT process did not authorize judicial review at the behest of the complainant. The court also found that Shreves's constitutional challenge to the CHCRT's authority did not confer standing, as he lacked a personal stake in the outcome. Additionally, the court determined that any alleged mishandling of filings by the District Court did not affect the outcome, as the legal conclusions regarding standing were correct. View "Shreves v. Montana Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Tanya Twoteeth was convicted by a jury in the First Judicial District Court of Montana for Tampering with Witnesses and Informants. The case arose from an investigation into car thefts, where Tanya's daughter, Desirae, was a suspect. Desirae's aunt, Roberta, initially reported seeing Desirae in a stolen vehicle. Before Desirae's trial, she made calls to Tanya, discussing concerns about Roberta's potential testimony. Tanya assured Desirae that she would speak to Roberta. Subsequently, Roberta changed her statement, claiming she did not see anyone in the car.The District Court admitted Roberta's initial statement to police as non-hearsay, over Tanya's objection. Tanya was charged with tampering based on the recorded calls and Roberta's changed testimony. Tanya moved to dismiss the case for insufficient evidence, but the District Court denied the motion, finding enough evidence for the jury to decide.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the District Court did not err in admitting Roberta's statement as non-hearsay, as it was used to show the trajectory of the investigation and not for the truth of the matter asserted. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Tanya's conviction. The recorded calls and the change in Roberta's testimony provided a reasonable basis for the jury to infer that Tanya had influenced Roberta. The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Twoteeth" on Justia Law

Wes Lee Whitaker was convicted by a jury of sexual intercourse without consent (SIWC), incest, and sexual assault. The case involved allegations that Whitaker sexually abused his stepdaughter, L.M., who was a young child at the time. The abuse was reported by L.M.'s mother, Jessica, after she observed suspicious behavior and L.M. disclosed inappropriate touching by Whitaker. L.M. provided detailed accounts of the abuse during a forensic interview and a medical examination, although she could not recall many details during the trial.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, presided over the trial. Whitaker raised several issues on appeal, including the admission of testimony via video from a federal prisoner, the admission of L.M.'s prior statements, and a claim of double jeopardy regarding his convictions for SIWC and sexual assault. The District Court allowed the video testimony due to COVID-19 concerns and admitted L.M.'s prior statements as inconsistent with her trial testimony.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court did not violate Whitaker's confrontation rights by allowing the video testimony, as the decision was justified by the pandemic and the witness's incarceration status. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting L.M.'s prior statements, as her inability to recall details at trial constituted a material inconsistency. However, the court agreed with Whitaker and the State that his convictions for SIWC and sexual assault violated double jeopardy, as they were based on the same act. Consequently, the court reversed the sexual assault conviction and remanded for entry of an amended judgment, while affirming the other convictions. View "State v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jose Frank Patina, was found guilty of five counts of Assault with a Weapon after a three-day jury trial. During the trial, Patina raised concerns about not receiving full discovery and issues with his counsel's performance, including the timing and substance of certain motions and his ability to view evidence. He requested a substitution of counsel, citing a lack of communication and trust in his attorney.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Yellowstone County conducted an initial inquiry into Patina's complaints. The court confirmed that Patina had been provided with all necessary discovery and that his counsel had acted appropriately regarding the motions and evidence. Despite Patina's general feelings of discomfort and unsupported concerns, the court found his complaints to be vague and unsubstantiated. The court denied his request for substitute counsel, stating that his grievances did not demonstrate a complete breakdown in communication that would warrant such a substitution.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the District Court had conducted an adequate initial inquiry into Patina's complaints and correctly determined that his grievances were not "seemingly substantial." The court emphasized that a defendant's right to substitute counsel arises only when there is a complete breakdown in communication that frustrates the purpose of effective assistance. Patina's complaints were found to be either misunderstandings or matters of trial strategy, which do not justify the substitution of counsel. The conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Patina" on Justia Law

In 2019, Jesse Hubbell was hired to film a scuba-diving campaign advertisement. He and John Mues rented scuba gear from Gull Scuba Center. Gull’s instructor, Chris Hanson, asked for their diving certification cards. Mues provided his “Advanced Diver” certification, but Jesse did not have his card. Jesse claimed he was PADI certified, and Hanson either did not verify this or did not recall doing so. Jesse drowned three days later while using the rented gear.Ellen Hubbell, Jesse’s widow, sued several defendants, including Gull, alleging negligence for renting the equipment without verifying Jesse’s certification. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, granted summary judgment in favor of Gull, finding no dispute of material fact regarding Gull’s liability.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by relying on the PRA Membership Standards to establish Gull’s duty to Jesse, as both parties’ experts indicated these standards were generally accepted in the scuba rental industry. The court also upheld the exclusion of Ellen’s expert, Thomas Maddox’s, opinion on industry standards, as it differed substantively from the prior expert’s report, which was beyond the scope allowed by the District Court’s amended scheduling order.Finally, the court agreed with the District Court’s determination that Hanson’s failure to check Jesse’s certification did not cause his death. The court found that even if Hanson had checked Jesse’s certification, Mues, who was of legal age and held an Advanced Diver certification, could have rented the equipment for Jesse. Therefore, the failure to check the certification was not the cause-in-fact of Jesse’s death. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of Gull. View "Hubbell v Gull Scuba Center" on Justia Law

The defendant, Michael Lee Marfuta, Jr., lived in a trailer park in Livingston, Montana, and worked there under an informal agreement. After the park was sold to a nonprofit corporation, Marfuta faced new employment requirements and was eventually served with an eviction notice for failing to pay rent. Marfuta responded with threatening emails, indicating he would resist eviction violently. On February 2, 2021, law enforcement attempted to serve an eviction notice, leading to a standoff where Marfuta fired multiple shots at officers. He was eventually arrested after a prolonged confrontation.The Sixth Judicial District Court of Park County initially charged Marfuta with several offenses, including Attempted Deliberate Homicide, but did not include a weapon enhancement. The State later amended the charges to include the weapon enhancement under § 46-18-221, MCA. Marfuta moved to dismiss the weapon enhancement, arguing the State did not properly seek pre-filing approval. The District Court denied the motion, stating it had granted leave to file the Amended Information, which included the weapon enhancement. The jury found Marfuta guilty of Attempted Deliberate Homicide and Assault on a Peace Officer, and the court sentenced him to 82 years in prison, including the weapon enhancement.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The Court held that the District Court properly denied Marfuta's motion to dismiss the weapon enhancement, as the State had provided sufficient probable cause and notice. The Court also found that the jury instructions on the mental state for Attempted Deliberate Homicide were adequate when considered as a whole. Additionally, the Court rejected Marfuta's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that his counsel's performance did not fall below the standard required by the Sixth Amendment. View "State v. Marfuta" on Justia Law