Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court imposing costs, surcharges, and fees as recommended by Defendant's presentence investigation report in connection with his conviction of felony driving under the influence pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-401, holding that remand was required.Despite Defendant's objections that he could not afford to pay, the district court imposed a $5,000 fine, several costs, surcharges and fees. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for the court to strike the costs, surcharges, and fees from the judgment, holding that the court misapprehended the effect of the evidence at the sentencing hearing in concluding that Defendant had the ability to pay because his assets outweighed his liabilities. View "State v. Dowd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court in this tax appeal, holding that the district court erred by concluding that Mont. Code Ann. 15-30-2119, the NOL statute, operates as a dollar-for-dollar offset provision that indirectly taxes out-of-state income.At issue was the decision of the Department of Revenue to deny nonresident taxpayers Franklin and Janet Tiegs a carryover net operating loss (NOL) deduction on their 2014 and 2015 Montana income tax returns. The Montana Tax Appeal Board upheld the Department's decision, but the district court reversed, concluding that Mont. Code Ann. 15-30-2119 was unconstitutional because it authorized taxation of non-Montana income. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) erred by holding that the general use of out-of-state income within the Montana income tax framework violated Mont. Code Ann. 15-30-2102 and federal constitutional principles; and (2) erred by concluding that section 15-30-2119 constitutes impermissible taxation of income outside of Montana's jurisdictional reach. View "Tiegs v. State, Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to transfer his criminal case to youth court, holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider Appellant's mitigating and unrequited evidence supporting transfer.Defendant had turned seventeen years old one month before the incident leading to his charges of sexual intercourse without consent, sexual abuse of children, and sexual assault. After a hearing to determine if the case should be transferred to youth court, the district court concluded that transferring the case would be in Defendant's best interests and would serve the interests of community protection but that the transfer should be denied based on the severity of the offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court misapprehended the evidence presented by Defendant suggesting that the nature of the offense did not warrant district court prosecution and, instead, impermissibly reached its conclusion based solely on the egregious facts of the offense. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court revoking Defendant's suspended sentences, holding that the district court had no authority to revoke Defendant's sentence and impose on a new sentence on the basis that it did.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in revoking the suspended portions of his sentences for failing to enroll or complete treatment prior to his release from prison. At issue was whether Defendant would be in immediate violation of his probation conditions upon release to the suspended portion of his sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence imposed upon Defendant, holding that the district court lacked the authority to revoke Defendant's sentence and impose a new sentence on the basis that Defendant did not have sex offender treatment arranged prior to release to the suspended portion of his sentence because no such requirement was contained in his probation conditions. View "State v. Pulst" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court awarding Plaintiff $1,000 in actual damages and $2,000 in punitive damages in the underlying trial relating to Defendant's potentially racial motivations for two incidents leading to Plaintiff's assault and battery and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, holding that a new trial was required.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in granting Defendant's motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff's race-based evidence because of its prejudicial nature from the punitive damages phase of trial. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the district court erred in excluding this evidence during the punitive damage phase of trial and that a new trial was required limited to the amount of punitive damages for which Defendant was liable to Plaintiff in accordance with this opinion. View "Two Leggins v. Gatrell" on Justia Law

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