Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony assault on a peace officer, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it decided not to instruct the jury on the defense of justifiable use of force.On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court judge's determination that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant justifiable use of force instructions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented did not demonstrate unlawful force by the officer that would justify self-defense; and (2) therefore, the denial of Defendant's proposed justified use of force instructions was not an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Marquez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order issued by the district court concerning the conservatorship and estate planning efforts of Appellant's elderly mother, H.D.K., 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 when it declined to issue a scheduling order; (2) did not abuse its discretion in declining to quash a subpoena for the file of H.D.K.'s attorney; (3) did not abuse its discretion when it concluded the conservatorship hearing after three days; (4) did not err when it issued findings regarding how H.D.K. intended to allocate her estate; (5) did not err by determining the present values of the properties in H.D.K.'s estate; and (6) did not err when it found H.D.K. had testamentary capacity. View "In re H.D.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court recommitting B.A.F. to the Montana Mental Health Nursing Care Center (MMHNCC) for a period of one year, holding that the district court did not err.In 2016, B.A.F., who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder, was involuntarily committed to the MMHNCC for his mental illness. The district court extended B.A.F.'s initial commitment period by one year each in 2017, 2018, and 2019. In this case, B.A.F. appealed the district court's 2019 order for recommitment, arguing that the court erred when it recommitted him without a post-petition mental health evaluation by a court-appointed professional, as statutorily required. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that B.A.F. failed to establish that the district court's error resulted in substantial prejudice, and therefore, B.A.F. did not meet the second prong of plain-error review. View "In re B.A.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the deliberate homicide case against him, holding that the district court erred when it ordered Appellant to pay his public defender fees.Appellant was convicted of the deliberate homicide of his father and for tampering with evidence. The district court imposed a seventy-year prison year for the two offenses and ordered Appellant to pay $25,250 in costs for the assistance of assigned counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's due process rights were not violated by the State's conduct investigating and relating the crime scene; (2) the prosecutor's comments at trial did not improperly distort Appellant's presumption of innocence or the State's burden of proof; but (3) the imposition of costs must be stricken in the interests of justice. View "State v. Fisher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of bail-jumping, one count for each scheduled trial he missed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in granting the State's Gillham motion to allow his former attorney to testify and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the District Court did not err by allowing Defendant's former attorney to testify as a state witness in his bail-jumping trial, and the testimony did not violate Defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel; and (2) Defendant's remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims were unavailing. View "State v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual assault and incest involving his biological son, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that sexual assault is a lesser included offense of incest and that his conviction violated double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's convictions for sexual assault and incest did not violate the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution, the Montana Constitution, and Mont. Code An. 46-11-410; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's representation was deficient. View "State v. Valenzuela" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Petitioner's petition to expunge or redesignate as a civil infraction his charge of felony criminal production or manufacture of dangerous drugs, holding that the district court did not err by denying Petitioner's petition to expunge his felony charge of criminal manufacture of dangerous drugs.At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the actions that led to Petitioner's 2002 marijuana charge were permitted under the Montana Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MMRTA), which allows for the legal possession and use of limited quantities of marijuana for adults, thus entitling him to expungement or predesignation of the charge as a civil infraction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not qualify for expungement under the MMRTA because he did not have the landowner's written permission to grow marijuana on the property, as required by the MMRTA. View "Rairdan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Linda Dower motion for partial summary judgment wherein she argued that certain trust assets should be included in an estate in order to satisfy her statutory allowances, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Douglas Dower was married to Alyce Dower until her death in 2008. The couple had four children, including Jayne Dower Lux, and executed a revocable living trust. In 2011, Douglas married Linda. After Douglas died and during the probate process, Linda argued that certain trust assets should be included in the estate for purposes of satisfying her statutory allowances. The district court denied Linda's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it concluded that trust assets were nonprobate assets and could only be used to satisfy Linda's statutory allowances when and to the extent the probate estate was insufficient; (2) did not err when it determined the probate estate was sufficient to satisfy Linda's statutory allowances through the abatement of her specific devises; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by denying Linda's motion to remove Lux as personal representative. View "In re Estate of Dower" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting Lease Option Solution, LLC's (LOS) motion for summary judgment on lien property and entering judgment in favor of ACI Construction, LLC on its unjust enrichment claim, holding that the district court did not err.ACI filed this action for lien foreclosure, naming as defendants all parties with liens or interest in the property and alleging, as relevant to this appeal, unjust enrichment against LOS. LOS sought summary judgment regarding priority of liens on certain property. The district court granted summary judgment to LOS on the issue of lien priority and entered judgment for ACI on its unjust enrichment claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in its determination of lien priority; and (2) did not err by determining that ACI was entitled to recover under the theory that LOS was unjustly enriched. View "A.C.I. Construction, LLC v. Elevated Property Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the sentencing order and judgment issued by the district court imposing a four-year suspended sentence for Defendant's convictions for criminal possession of dangerous drugs, holding that Defendant received ineffective assistance during the sentencing hearing.On appeal, Defendant argued that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney, while arguing for a deferred sentence, failed to inform the district court of his authority to impose an alternative sentence under Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-202. The Supreme Court agreed, reversed Defendant's sentence, and remanded for resentencing, holding that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentence when her counsel failed to cite the Alternative Sentencing Authority, Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-202, as authority for Defendant's eligibility for a deferred sentence. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law