Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the State's felony charge against him for failure to register as a sexual offender, holding that the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA), as amended since 2007, was punitive in nature.Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in 1994 and served and discharged his sentence. At the time, SVORA, known then as Montana's Sexual offender Registration Act, required Defendant to maintain registration for ten years. When the legislature amended SVORA, it included more onerous steps and applied them retroactively to previously convicted registrants such as Defendant. In 2019, Defendant was charged with failure to register. Defendant appealed, arguing that the amended SVORA requirements rendered the statute an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment for his earlier crime. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) SVORA as amended is punitive in nature; and (2) therefore, the requirements brought on by those amendments could not retroactively be applied to defendants whose convictions predate the amendments. View "State v. Hinman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two homicides and two attempts to solicit a third homicide, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of deliberate homicide and two counts of solicitation to commit deliberate homicide and sentenced to serve four concurrent sentences of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State's use of jailhouse informants did not violate Defendant's right to counsel; (2) the jury was fully and fairly instructed as to the applicable law; (3) any error on the part of the trial court in limiting defense counsel's ability to comment on a missing prosecution witness during closing argument; and (4) this Court will not exercise plain error review to consider whether Defendant's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and other trial errors deprived him of a fair trial. View "State v. Hardy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of assault with a weapon and his commitment to the Department of Public Health and Human Service (DPHHS) for the duration of his twenty-year sentence with ten years suspended, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, and the parties agreed to recommend that Defendant be committed to the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) for the duration of his sentence. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to twenty years in DPHHS's custody with ten years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court unjustly resumed his criminal proceedings due to the lengthy period between his arrest and the date he regained fitness to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss because resuming Defendant's criminal proceedings was not unjust. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order issued by the district court denying Montana Opticom, LLC's motion to disqualify counsel for Scott Rysewyk, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to disqualify Rysewyk's counsel.Rysewyk, represented by Rabb Law Firm (RLF), filed a complaint alleging trespass, ejectment, negligent civil conspiracy, and inverse condemnation by Opticom and Jim Dolan, Jr., a partial owner of Opticom. Opticom filed a motion to disqualify Rysewyk's counsel, arguing that Rysewyk's counsel of record was disqualified from representing him because of the firm's earlier representation of Dolan. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Opticom offered "no proof of any actual prejudice flowing from the alleged conflict of interest." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the district court was presented with no evidence that Opticom was actually prejudiced, the court did not act arbitrarily or exceed the bounds of reason by denying Opticom's motion to disqualify. View "Rysewyk v. Mont. Opticom, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court requiring Broadwater County to provide to Helena Independent Record (IR) or other interested persons redacted videographer and documentation records pertaining to Jason Ellsworth's May 2021 stop by and encounter with a Montana Highway Patrol officer, holding that there was no error.Ellsworth pleaded guilty to an obstructing a peace officer. Thereafter, a reporter with the IR requested from Broadwater County a copy of Ellsworth's investigative file. Petitioner, a county attorney, determined that the file contained confidential criminal justice information and filed a petition seeking a declaratory ruling to clarify and enforce the rights of recovery to redacted confidential criminal justice information (CCJI) contained in the file. Petitioner also filed a separate motion for leave to deposit the investigative file under seal. The district court (1) concluded that Ellsworth's criminal case had been completed and that the declaratory action was ripe for decision; and (2) held that Ellsworth's privacy rights outweighed the public's right to know regarding certain information irrelevant to the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Ellsworth was given a proper opportunity to participate, and his due process right was not infringed regarding the release of the CCJI. View "Broadwater Co. v. Release of Confidential Criminal Justice Information" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) determining that Johnny Lee Sheldon's claim was compensable, that Contessa Bryer, Sheldon's guardian and conservator, was entitled to her attorney fees, and that a statutory penalty should be imposed against Accident Fund General Insurance Company, holding that the WCC did not err.Sheldon was rendered incapacitated and mentally incompetent after a workplace accident. Because Accident Fund General Insurance Company refused to accept liability for Sheldon's workers' compensation claim Bryer, Sheldon's guardian and conservator, petitioned the WCC for a hearing. The WCC ruled that Accident Fund was liable for Sheldon's injuries and that Bryer was entitled to attorney fees and a statutory penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC did not err when it (1) ruled that the statute of limitations was tolled during the time that Sheldon had no appointed guardian; (2) found that substantial credible evidence supported the WCC's finding that Sheldon was working with argon when the pressure relief valve burst; and (3) awarded attorney fees under Mont. Code Ann. 39-71-611 and by imposing a penalty against Accident Fund under Mont. Code Ann. 39-71-2907. View "Bryer v. Accident Fund General Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment for United Fire and Casualty Company and concluding that Clifford Christian and/or his Estate were not owed a defense or indemnification for claims made against Christian in litigation brought by Linda and Albert Parisian, holding that there was no error.Christian contracted with a general contractor on his project to construct four townhomes, one of which was pre-sold to the Parisians. A subcontractor later sued the general contractor and Parisians to obtain payment for his work to landscape the homesites. Christian was named as a third-party defendant and sought defense and indemnification from United Fire, which had insured the general contractor with a liability policy for the period at issue. After United Fire denied Christian's request Christian's Estate initiated this action. The district court granted summary judgment to United Fire. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaint did not allege facts that if proven, would trigger policy coverage. View "Christian v. United Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment order denying Plaintiff's wrongful discharge from employment claim, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.Plaintiff filed a complaint for wrongful termination well over more than one year after her employment ended. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed timely to file her complaint under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act. The district court granted the motion, finding that Plaintiff's discharge was for "good cause" and that Plaintiff did not establish that the reasons for her discharge were false, pretextual, or retaliatory. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting Defendant summary judgment based on the undisputed facts establishing good cause for Plaintiff's termination and Plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient evidence establishing that the reasons for her termination were retaliatory. View "Shepherd v. State Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of aggravated burglary and obstructing a police officer and sentencing him to forty years for aggravated burglary and six months for obstructing a peace officer, holding that the case must be remanded for resentencing.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated; (2) Defendant's claim of instructional error not warrant plain error review because he failed to show how he was prejudiced; (3) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim must fail because Defendant he to show any prejudice; and (4) Defendant was entitled to resentencing because the district court relied on incorrect information when it imposed the sentence. View "State v. Kirn" on Justia Law

In this estate action, the Supreme Court reversed and vacated an order of the district court denying a motion to strike notice of disallowance and an order denying the personal representative's motion for summary judgment, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the orders.Carl Scott devised his entire estate to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. After Carl died, David Scott, on behalf of himself and the Estate of Kenneth Scott, filed a creditor claim against Carl's estate for its equity in a family farm. The district court concluded that the Scott Children had a vested interest in the farm's equity and that the Estate was obligated to disburse the funds to them. Thereafter, the Estate issued a notice of disallowance for the Scott Children's claims, arguing that they were equitable and that the district court, while sitting in probate, lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to strike the Estate's notice of disallowance; and (2) erred by ruling on the personal representative's motion for summary judgment. View "In re Estate of Scott" on Justia Law