Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the youth court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the State's petition to revoke his probation, holding that the youth court erred when it revoked Appellant's probation under a consent decree without Appellant's youth court petition having been reinstated.The youth court relied on the findings from its order to grant two dispositional orders that (1) granted the State's petition to revoke Appellant's probation and imposed a suspended sentence to the Montana Department of Corrections for placement in a secure juvenile facility, and (2) granted the State's second petition to revoke Appellant's probation and committed Appellant to Pine Hills Youth Correctional Facility. The Supreme Court reversed, thus vacating the youth court's two dispositional orders, holding that because the State failed to reinstate Appellant's original youth court petition, the youth court failed to follow the appropriate statutory procedure for a violation of a consent decree. View "In re C.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's petition to expunge or predesignate as a civil infraction his felony conviction of criminal possession of dangerous drugs, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's petition.Defendant pled guilty to possessing over sixty grams of marijuana. After voters passed the Montana Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MMRTA), now codified as Title 16, chapter 12, MCA, Defendant petitioned for expungement or redesignation of his marijuana conviction. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Defendant was not eligible for expungement or redesignation because the MMRTA does not permit the marijuana-related conduct for which Defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, on its face, Defendant's conviction did not qualify for expungement or redesignation under the MMRTA. View "Maier v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the municipal court revoking Defendant's deferred sentence and imposing a six-month suspended sentence, holding that the municipal court did not err or abuse its discretion.When he violated an order of protection Defendant violated a condition of his deferred six-month sentence for misdemeanor sexual assault. The district court affirmed the municipal court's decision revoking Defendant's deferred sentence and imposing a suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the municipal court (1) correctly applied the law when it revoked Defendant's sentence; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Defendant's six-month deferred sentence and imposed a six-month suspended sentence. View "City of Missoula v. Sadiku" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court (1) resolving the parties' summary judgment motions, ruling in favor of Defendant, Plaintiff's former employer, in Plaintiff's wrongful discharge lawsuit; and (2) denying Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint in that case to add an age discrimination claim, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err in holding that Defendant's failure to exhaust internal grievance procedures precluded his wrongful discharge case as a matter of law; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in finding Defendant's age discrimination claim futile and therefore denying his motion for leave to amend the complaint. View "Hathaway v. Zoot Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant on the offense of partner or family member strangulation, holding that the district court did not commit plain error by failing to make a record inquiry and determination as to whether Defendant validly waived his right to testify at trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court committed plain error by allowing defense counsel to waive Defendant's right to testify at trial through counsel without a record inquiry and judicial finding that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently chose not to do so. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no evidence that the district court erred as to this issue. View "State v. Abel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict and dispositional order finding J.W. guilty of the offense of sexual intercourse without consent - a felony if committed by an adult, adjudicating J.W. a delinquent youth, and designating J.W. a serious juvenile offender, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the Youth Court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury to consider youth characteristics in determining J.W.'s guilt; (2) the Youth Court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury on the legal age of consent; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to convict J.W. of the offense of sexual intercourse without consent. View "In re J.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony sexual intercourse without consent, holding that Defendant received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel.At issue was whether Defendant's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when counsel allowed prior consistent statements from a forensic interview into evidence without challenge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record before the Court implied at least a plausible justification for counsel's actions; and (2) without more evidence, it cannot be determined whether defense counsel did not perform effectively for Defendant. View "State v. Mikesell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the district court concluding that Appellant was not entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) and medical payment (MP) coverages under his automobile policy with USAA Casualty Insurance Company, holding that the court erred in part.The district court granted summary judgment for USAA on both coverages. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) as to the UIM coverage, the district court erred by interpreting the contract and determining its terms were not contrary to public policy; and (2) as to the MP coverage, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of USAA. View "Goss v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying as untimely the motion of the Montana Secretary of State to substitute a judge, holding that the Secretary's motion to substitute a judge was timely, and the district court erred by denying the motion.Plaintiff brought this action challenging HB 325, a bill that would alter the election process for state Supreme Court justices if passed by ballot referendum in November 2022, alleging that the bill violated the Montana Constitution. The Secretary moved to substitute the district court judge. The district court denied the substitution motion as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a lawsuit filed against the Secretary of State is a lawsuit against "the State," such that service of process is not complete until the date the Attorney General is served. View "McDonald v. Jacobsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of indecent exposure to a minor, sexual abuse of children in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(c) and (4), and sexual abuse of children, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(c) and (2)(b), holding that Defendant's counsel provided record-based ineffective assistance of counsel that required reversal and remand for a new trial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the statutory basis for Count I when the statute upon which the charge was based did not go into effect until after one of the alleged incidents occurred; and (2) the ex post facto application of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(c) for Count II and Count III required remand for a new trial. View "State v. Tipton" on Justia Law