Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her son, C.K., holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to amend Mother's treatment plan or when it determined that Mother was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-609(1)(f). On appeal, Mother argued, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to amend her treatment plan to enumerate specific parenting tasks related to raising a child with autism and to provide for related services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) in refusing to amend Mother's treatment plan on the day of the termination hearing; and (2) in finding that Mother was unlikely to change in a reasonable time. View "In re C.K." on Justia Law

In this medical malpractice action arising from a circumcision, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court precluding Plaintiff from presenting evidence as to either using incorrect scissors or incorrect use of scissors during the subject surgical procedure, holding that the court did not err.Plaintiff, for the benefit of her son, brought this action against Defendant, alleging that Defendant was negligent in performing her son's circumcision. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings and the subsequent defense verdict, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding portions of Plaintiff's expert's testimony not disclosed in accordance with Mont. R. Civ. P. 26 and the scheduling order. View "Higgins v. Augustine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for sexual intercourse without consent, a felony, and affirmed his remaining convictions for aggravated kidnapping and assault with a weapon, holding that defense counsel's deficient performance undermined this Court's confidence in the outcome of the proceedings as it pertained to Defendant's conviction for sexual intercourse without consent.At issue on appeal was whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to expert testimony on the statistical likelihood that Defendant's accuser was lying. The Supreme Court held that while the testimony may have improperly bolstered the complaining witness's testimony regarding the element of consent as to the sexual intercourse without consent charge it had no bearing on the kidnapping and assault with a knife charges. View "State v. Quiroz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Water Court that adjudicated the priority dates for certain of its water rights in Basin 40B in Petroleum County, holding that the Water Court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Water Court (1) did not err in concluding that the water rights to much of the irrigated acreage owned by Twin Creeks Farm & Ranch had been abandoned been the initial claimed priority date of 1903 and later irrigation development around 1968; and (2) was correct to grant Twin Creeks an implied claim with a 1968 priority date rather than tying the later irrigated acreage to the original 1903 claim. View "Twin Creeks Farm & Ranch, LLC v. Petrolia Irrigation District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of nine counts of assault on a minor and one count of perjury, holding that sufficient evidence existed to support Defendant's conviction for perjury and that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss due to a speedy trial violation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) viewing the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt based on Defendant's testimony, a jail phone call made by Defendant, and trial testimony; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the State did not violate Defendant's right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Burnett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of theft and burglary for stealing merchandise from the Ravalli Services Corporation donation intake center, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by excluding F.Z., a developmentally disabled witness, as a witness on the ground that he was incompetent to testify; (2) did not err in instructing the jury to disregard testimony that Defendant applied for a job at a motel one year before committing the charges; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in permitting the State to call a certain rebuttal witness. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court confirming the division of property owned by Cynthia, Kenneth, and Daniel Morley, as set forth in a referees report to the court, holding that the district court did not err.Daniel brought a complaint for partition of real and personal property seeking to partition real property in which he inherited an undivided one-third interest. The other two tenants in common were Cynthia and Kenneth. Appointed referees determined how the property should be divided, and the district court entered an order confirming the referees' division of property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by adopting the referees' report without holding an evidentiary hearing on Cynthia and Kenneth's objections; and (2) did not err by accepting the referees' division of costs. View "Morley v. Morley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court finding two officials with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (hereinafter, MDPHHS) in indirect contempt of referenced orders in the underlying matter and imposing a sanction pending subsequent compliance with the subject orders, holding that the district court erred.The referenced orders at issue directed the Montana State Hospital to accept custody and care of the underlying criminal defendant for fitness rehabilitation pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-14-221(2)-(3) and thus imposing a $500 per-day coercive civil sanction pending future compliance with the orders. The district court adjudicated MDPHHS in indirect contempt for failing to transport the defendant as required and imposed a $500 per-day coercive civil sanction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court's threshold contempt finding and resulting imposition of a coercive civil sanction were both erroneously based on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact; and (2) the court's imposition of a continuing or cascading per-day fine was further erroneous in excess of the limiting language of Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-501(3). View "Fouts v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the district court ordering Plaintiff to pay the attorney fees and costs of Defendant, the prevailing party in a construction defect suit initiated by Plaintiff, holding that the district court erred in part.Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants alleging negligence, breach of contract, and other claims. The district court held in favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiffs' claims. The court then awarded attorney fees and costs to Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court erred by determining that Defendant had a reciprocal right to an award of attorney fees under Mont. Code Ann. 70-19-428 and Mont. Code Ann. 28-3-704. View "Rafes v. McMillan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court reinstating dismissed criminal charges against Defendant over Defendant's counsel's objection, holding that the court erred in resuming the dismissed criminal case after Defendant spent years in civil commitment following an earlier finding of his lack of fitness to proceed.In 2005, Defendant was charged with felony sexual assault and misdemeanor indecent exposure. The district court found Defendant unfit to proceed and suspended the criminal process to determine whether Defendant could gain competency to stand trial. The district court later found that Defendant met the requirements for civil commitment, and for years thereafter, the State successfully filed petitions for recommitment in Defendant's civil case. In 2017, Defendant requested a hearing regarding his recommitment and time to complete another psychological evaluation. In return, the State entered a new motion in its dismissed criminal case from 2005. The district court reinstated Defendant's criminal case so that Defendant could remain committed while the criminal case moved forward. Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual assault while reserving issues for appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decisions granting the State's motion to reevaluate Defendant's fitness to proceed and reopening his criminal case, holding that double jeopardy and other due process considerations precluded the State from resuming Defendant's criminal case. View "State v. Mosby" on Justia Law