Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to R.K., holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated Mother's parental rights.After a termination hearing, the district court concluded that the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division met its burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence regarding all required elements for the termination of MOther's rights and that it was in R.K.'s best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother's failure to complete her treatment plan and to maintain consistent vision with R.K. to reestablish a parent-child relationship supported the district court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights. View "In re R.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress and dismiss, holding that Defendant's warrantless arrest was unlawful, and therefore, it was error for the district court not to suppress and exclude the evidence discovered as a result of the unlawful search.Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress and dismiss. On appeal, Defendant argued that the underlying arrest was illegal and led directly to the discovery of the incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the district court erred by not suppressing and excluding the evidence at issue. View "State v. Price" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court determining that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that a routine clothed body search did not violate Appellant's Eighth Amendment rights, holding that there was no error.Appellant, an inmate, filed an amended complaint alleging that Sergeant Larry Pasha's performance of a routine clothed body search of Appellant violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to Appellees on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Sergeant Pasha's search of Appellant was routine and did not violate Appellant's Eighth Amendment rights. View "Lawrence v. Pasha" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant's second petition for postconviction relief (PCR) relating to his convictions for two counts of sexual intercourse without consent, two counts of incest, and one count of tampering with a witness, holding that Appellant's second petition was time barred.Based on a victim's affidavit, Appellant brought his second successive petition for PCR arguing that he had newly discovered evidence that the State had coached the victim. The district court dismissed the claims without ordering the State to respond. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's petition was time barred. View "State v. Worthan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict and subsequent judgment of conviction and sentencing order issued by the district court convicting Defendant of sexual abuse of children and sentencing her to 100 years at the Montana Women's Prison with fifty years suspended for knowingly selling her four-year-old daughter, J.L.D., to a man for sex, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err in excluding evidence pursuant to the Rape Shield statute that J.L.D. was abused by other men; (2) did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of other uncharged bad acts; (3) did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial by soliciting testimony from an investigating detective; (4) did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation by requiring that litigants, witnesses, and jurors wear masks or face shields during trial; (5) did not abuse its discretion in limiting voir dire as it did; and (6) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the State's failure to disclose an investigative note. View "State v. Mountain Chief" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court adjudging Defendant guilty of five offenses, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over counts one, four, and five, and therefore, Defendant's convictions on those counts were improper.Defendant was adjudged guilty of misdemeanor assault (count one), felony assault on a peace officer or judicial officer (count two) and three counts of misdemeanor assault with a bodily fluid (counts three, four, and five). Defendant pled guilty to the misdemeanor charges and was found guilty by a jury on the felony charge. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred by retaining jurisdiction over counts one, four and five; and (2) remand was required for the district court to amend the charge imposed with the sentence for count two from $200 to $20 and for count three from $20 to $15. View "State v. Pehringer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court imposing sentencing conditions limiting Defendant's ability to access the internet or possess certain electronic devices, holding that three conditions were overly broad.Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent for communicating with the victim through text messaging and Snapchat. The district court sentenced Defendant to a twelve year term of incarceration and imposed the conditions at issue on appeal regarding technology use. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's imposition of the three challenged conditions, holding that, in their current incarceration, the conditions failed to consider the multiple legitimate purposes for internet usage, but that, as modified by the Court, the conditions provided Defendant the change to rehabilitate outside of the prison setting and the community protection from future criminal activity. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, holding that, while the State did not show a valid reason for the over 1,300-day delay in bringing Defendant's case to trial, Defendant was not prejudiced.On May 23, 2017, the State charged Defendant with felony criminal distribution of dangerous drugs and felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute. On February 10, 2021, Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, and the remaining charge was dismissed. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its balance of the speedy trial factors and in concluding that Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Daly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court enforcing a settlement agreement between Duane Bender and Rebecca Estates, LLC (collectively, Bender) and Stacey Rosman providing for Bender's purchase of Rosman's property near Shepherd, holding that the district court did not err.Bender filed suit against Rosman alleging trespass and tortious interference with contract and seeking to quiet title. Prior to trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement providing for the purchase of Rosman's property by Bender. The district court issued an order enforcing the settlement agreement for the price of $202,000. Bender appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by concluding that Rosman was entitled to specific performance of the settlement agreement. View "Bender v. Rosman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting a summary judgment motion filed by Petitioners and two insurers, Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange (collectively, Insurers), and denying Respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment, holding that the district court did not err by finding that Insurers had no duty to defend Respondent under the terms of the relevant insurance policies.After a complaint in the underlying lawsuit alleging slander, malicious prosecution, and bodily injury was amended to add Respondent as a defendant Respondent tendered the complaint to Farmers seeking defense and indemnity under a series of homeowners insurance policies and commercial general liability policies. Later, the Insurers filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial determination that they were not obligated to defend and indemnity Respondent. The district court found that Insurers had no duty to defend Respondent under any of the policies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Respondent failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the claims fell within the scope of coverage of any of the policies at issue. View "Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Minemyer" on Justia Law