Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute over a theft that occurred in Great Falls, Montana. The defendant, who had been living with her cousin at the cousin’s home and then at the home of another relative, was accused of stealing property from a storage unit rented in the name of the cousin’s daughter and paid for by the cousin’s husband. Surveillance footage and gate access records showed the defendant, along with a co-defendant, accessing the storage unit multiple times and removing property. The defendant acknowledged taking some items that did not belong to her but claimed she believed she had permission to retrieve her own belongings and returned most of the items.The Eighth Judicial District Court held a jury trial where the prosecution introduced text messages between the co-defendant and the complaining witness, which discussed details of the alleged theft and the property taken. Although the defense objected to these messages as hearsay, the court admitted them. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant of felony theft of property valued between $1,500 and $5,000 but acquitted her of burglary. The defendant appealed, arguing that the admission of the text messages constituted an abuse of discretion and that the error was not harmless.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court’s error in admitting the hearsay text messages was harmless. The Court held that the error was not harmless because the messages impermissibly bolstered the prosecution’s case and undermined the defendant’s credibility, contributing to the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the State failed to demonstrate there was no reasonable possibility that the inadmissible evidence contributed to the conviction. View "State v. Henderson" on Justia Law

A young child was removed from her mother’s care, along with her two siblings, due to concerns of neglect and abuse. After initial placement with their maternal grandmother, the grandmother asked for the children to be removed, and the subject child was subsequently placed with a licensed foster parent, J.D., where she remained. The child’s brother was later hospitalized and, upon discharge, was placed with the grandmother, while the subject child remained with J.D. Over the course of the proceedings, professional testimony described the child’s attachment disorder, trauma history, and the risks posed by placement changes. Reports also indicated the child was thriving in her current placement and that sibling reunification was not in her best interest due to safety and emotional concerns.The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, held multiple hearings regarding placement and permanency. After terminating parental rights and granting permanent legal custody to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, the court denied the grandmother’s request for placement, finding good cause to depart from statutory placement preferences based on the child’s extraordinary mental and emotional needs. The court incorporated findings from previous orders, relied on professional testimony and a report from the Court Appointed Special Advocate, and approved adoption by J.D. as the permanency plan.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in approving adoption as the permanency plan and denying the grandmother’s placement request. The Supreme Court held that, despite some imprecise language, the District Court applied the correct statutory standards, made sufficient findings regarding the child’s best interests, and did not abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s order. View "In re M.L.O.-L." on Justia Law

Two individuals were found sleeping in a parked car outside a casino in Kalispell, Montana, prompting an employee to request law enforcement both conduct a welfare check and ask the occupants to leave the premises. Flathead County Sheriff’s Deputies approached the vehicle, spoke with the occupants—Christina Torres and Randy Joe Fish—and requested Fish’s identification. After Fish provided his name and date of birth, a warrant check revealed Fish had an outstanding arrest warrant. Fish was arrested, and a subsequent search uncovered less than 0.1 gram of methamphetamine in his pocket.Fish was charged with Felony Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. He moved to suppress the methamphetamine evidence, arguing the officers conducted a Terry stop without sufficient justification since they requested his name absent reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, thus violating his constitutional rights. The State responded that the interaction did not amount to a seizure, or alternatively, that the officers had particularized suspicion to investigate a possible trespass. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Fish’s suppression motion, concluding there was no Terry violation because the deputies acted appropriately given the circumstances and the property owner’s request.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s denial of the suppression motion. It presumed Fish was seized for constitutional analysis but found the initial police contact was justified under the community caretaker doctrine. When the welfare check was complete, the deputies had particularized suspicion to investigate trespass due to the request to remove Fish from the property. The Court held the officers’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution and affirmed the District Court’s denial of Fish’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Fish" on Justia Law

An armed and masked individual entered a pharmacy in Columbia Falls, Montana, and demanded Percocet 10 from three employees. The perpetrator directed the employees into a bathroom and fled after receiving the drugs. One employee, who knew Grant West personally, identified him as the robber based on his voice and limp, which matched surveillance footage. Police responded swiftly, arrested West at his residence, and found Percocet 10 in his pocket, along with shoes and a handgun resembling those seen in the surveillance video. West denied involvement, stating he had lent his vehicle to a friend and explaining his prescription history.The State charged West with robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and criminal possession of dangerous drugs in the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County. Before trial, the State disclosed that its key identifying witness had a hearing impairment. West’s motion to exclude this testimony for delayed disclosure was denied by the District Court. During trial, the jury heard evidence from pharmacy employees, law enforcement, and others. West moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence after the State's case, but the motion was denied. The jury found West guilty on all counts and he was sentenced to prison.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed five issues raised on appeal: the Brady claim regarding witness hearing impairment, sufficiency of the robbery evidence, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error. The court held that the delayed disclosure of the witness’s impairment did not undermine the verdict, that sufficient evidence supported the robbery conviction, that the prosecutor’s conduct did not prejudice West’s substantial rights, and that the ineffective assistance claims were not record-based and thus not reviewable on direct appeal. No cumulative error was found. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "State v. West" on Justia Law

A nonprofit coalition and two individuals challenged a county commission’s conditional approval for the development of a large seasonal RV park on a 21-acre lot in a rural area that had previously been designated for such use in a larger subdivision plan. The proposed site was adjacent to other commercial activity and near two lakes, but had no on-site surface water. The applicants submitted an environmental assessment (EA), which included groundwater well data and described wildlife in the area. The application process included public hearings, during which concerns were raised about groundwater impacts, wildlife, public safety, and increased recreational use.Following the submission of the application, the Lincoln County Planning Department recommended approval, and the Board of County Commissioners held public hearings, received additional agency comments, and ultimately granted conditional preliminary plat approval, requiring, among other conditions, state environmental review and approval of the water and sewer systems. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court, claiming the County’s approval was unlawful for not complying with statutory requirements for environmental review, consideration of probable impacts, and consistency with local plans. The District Court granted summary judgment for the County and intervenors, finding compliance with applicable statutes and plans.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the EA met statutory requirements, whether the County considered specific, documentable, and clearly defined impacts as required by law, and whether the subdivision was consistent with the local neighborhood plan and growth policy. The Supreme Court held that the EA satisfied statutory requirements by providing all available information; the County properly considered impacts using the required legal standard; and the County’s decision was consistent with the relevant policies and not arbitrary or capricious. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Thompson Chain of Lakes Stewardship Coalition v. Lincoln County" on Justia Law

A non-governmental organization challenged a county planning department’s decision to approve a land division in the Bitterroot Valley. The organization alleged that the planning department authorized a property owner to divide an 80-acre tract into eight parcels using a family transfer exemption, but failed to provide public notice before approving the application. The organization discovered the land division after it had occurred and argued that the lack of public notice violated the county’s subdivision regulations, the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, the Montana Public Participation Act, and constitutional rights to know and participate.The case was first heard in the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court, which granted the county’s motion to dismiss all claims. The district court concluded that the applicable county regulations did not require the planning department to provide published notice before reviewing or approving subdivision exemption applications. The court held that the organization had not stated a plausible claim because the regulations required only that the department accept public comments, not that it give notice.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims related to declaratory relief. The Supreme Court held that the county subdivision regulations, while silent on the specific mechanics of notice, require the planning department to provide public notice of pending exemption applications in order to give meaningful effect to the public’s right to comment, as mandated by the regulations. The court emphasized that public comment is meaningless without notice, and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the district court to require the planning department to provide notice and an adequate opportunity for public comment before reevaluating the exemption application. View "Sapphire v. Ravalli County" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted in North Dakota for misdemeanor Sexual Assault after entering a guilty plea to having inappropriate contact with a person and having reasonable cause to believe the contact was offensive. He was originally charged with a more serious felony, but the plea agreement stipulated a lesser offense and specifically stated he was not required to register as a sex offender under North Dakota law. After relocating to Montana, the Department of Justice informed him that, based on Montana’s interpretation of his conviction and the age of the victim alleged in the charging documents, he was required to register as a sex offender under Montana law.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court of Montana reviewed his petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent the Montana DOJ from requiring registration. The court denied his petition, reasoning that the proper remedy was to register and then later petition for removal under Montana Code Annotated § 46-23-506. The District Court also concluded that the facts alleged in the North Dakota charging document, though not proved beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the appellant, were sufficient to impose the registration duty.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court. The Supreme Court held that a writ of prohibition was an appropriate remedy because there was no statutory or administrative process for contesting the DOJ’s determination, and registration requirements under Montana law are punitive. The Court further held that Montana courts may not rely on facts not proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant when determining registration duties. Finally, the Court concluded that the North Dakota misdemeanor Sexual Assault statute is not reasonably equivalent to the Montana sexual offense statute that triggers registration, due to the lack of an age element in the North Dakota statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Cooper v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

A woman with dementia became a resident at a memory care facility in Montana in June 2021. She died in November 2021 after suffering infections and complications. Her son, acting both individually and as personal representative of her estate, filed suit against the facility and related entities in November 2023, alleging claims including wrongful death, negligence, infliction of emotional distress, elder abuse, unjust enrichment, and contract rescission. The claims centered on allegations that the facility’s staff failed to provide adequate care, leading to the woman’s injuries and death. The original complaint, and a subsequent first amended complaint filed in November 2024, were never served on any defendant.The Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, dismissed all claims with prejudice in March 2025, finding that the son’s claims were medical malpractice actions subject to the two-year statute of limitations and six-month service requirement under Montana law. The court concluded that because the complaints were not timely served, and the amended complaint was filed after the statute of limitations had expired, the claims were time-barred. The court also rejected arguments that the filing of the original complaint tolled the statute or that the amended complaint related back to the original complaint.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the care-related claims (Counts I-VI) were medical malpractice claims subject to the statutory time limits and service requirements, and affirmed their dismissal as time-barred. However, the court found that the unjust enrichment and contract rescission claims (Counts VII and VIII) were not medical malpractice claims and were not subject to those limitations. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of those two counts and remanded for further proceedings solely on those claims. View "Estate of Athy v. Edgewood" on Justia Law

A 16-year-old individual was criminally charged in Montana with several offenses, including aggravated burglary and assault on a peace officer. The prosecution filed an Information in the District Court, and a hearing was scheduled to decide whether the matter should be transferred to Youth Court, as permitted by Montana law for certain juvenile defendants. Before being arraigned, the defendant moved to substitute the presiding judge, arguing the motion was timely since arraignment had not yet occurred.The Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, denied the substitution motion without prejudice, reasoning that such motions are prohibited in Youth Court actions and would only be considered if the case remained in District Court following the transfer hearing. The court also issued an order for evaluation to assist in the transfer determination, but the order was initially filed under an incorrect cause number. The defendant then petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control, claiming the denial of the substitution motion was erroneous because the case was pending in District Court as a criminal action, not a Youth Court matter.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that after the State files an Information in District Court, jurisdiction over the criminal matter rests with the District Court, and the action is not a Youth Court case at that stage. The court further clarified that under Montana law, a defendant’s right to substitute a judge in criminal cases may be exercised any time before arraignment, and that the 10-day window for substitution closes at arraignment rather than opening at that point. The Supreme Court granted the petition for supervisory control, set aside the District Court’s order denying substitution, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "S.L. v. 4th Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

A petitioner sought a declaratory judgment regarding the legal sufficiency of a proposed constitutional ballot initiative, known as Ballot Issue 4. This initiative aimed to amend the Montana Constitution to limit the powers and privileges of "artificial persons"—including corporations, nonprofit corporations, limited liability companies, unincorporated associations, and certain foreign entities—by expressly restricting their ability to engage in election and ballot issue activities. The initiative would revoke all powers previously granted to artificial persons under Montana law, regrant only those necessary for lawful business or charitable purposes, and specifically prohibit election-related activities except for certain political committees. The petitioner contended that all provisions of the initiative were integral to a unified purpose: preventing artificial persons from participating in political spending.The Montana Attorney General, supported by amici, determined that Ballot Issue 4 was legally insufficient because it violated the separate-vote requirement of Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution. According to the Attorney General, the initiative encompassed multiple changes that were not closely related, including broad revocations and regrants of powers to artificial persons, and affected diverse areas of law beyond the stated intent. The petitioner challenged this determination, arguing that the initiative constituted a single, unified scheme and that none of its provisions could sensibly be considered separately.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana exercised original jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination. The Court held that Ballot Issue 4 violated the separate-vote requirement because it proposed more than one substantive constitutional change—specifically, both limiting artificial persons’ powers to those expressly provided and revoking and regranting powers in a manner that extended beyond election-related activities. The Court affirmed the Attorney General’s rejection of the initiative and denied the petitioner’s request to declare it legally sufficient. View "Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen" on Justia Law