Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Loren Dean Raver was pulled over while driving a stolen Ford F-150 and subsequently arrested. The truck's owner, Stacie Grandpre, confirmed that she did not know Raver and had not given him permission to drive her truck. Upon searching the vehicle, deputies found syringes, a spoon with a crystalline substance, and stolen copper wire and tools. Raver was charged with multiple counts, including felony theft and misdemeanors. He entered a no contest plea for felony theft and misdemeanor theft of the copper wire, and the other charges were dropped.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, held a sentencing hearing where the State requested $17,470.36 in restitution for Grandpre's losses, including vehicle damage, hunting gear, car rentals, and cleaning costs. The State presented testimony from a State Farm Insurance claims specialist, who attributed the damages to the theft based on Grandpre's statements and the investigation. Raver, a mechanic, contested the amount, claiming the truck had no issues during his possession and proposed a lower restitution amount.The District Court ordered the full restitution amount, finding a reasonable connection between the damage and Raver's theft. The court found the State's evidence credible and Raver's testimony not credible. Raver appealed, arguing insufficient causation and challenging the inclusion of the bumper replacement cost.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court found that the evidence presented, including the State Farm investigation and Grandpre's statements, supported the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also rejected Raver's argument regarding the bumper, as there was insufficient evidence to refute the State Farm conclusion. View "State v. Raver" on Justia Law

Thomas Joseph Brennan was charged with four counts of felony sexual assault and one count of felony sexual abuse of children. His 14-year-old stepdaughter, A.H., disclosed that Brennan habitually entered her bedroom to watch her change clothes and touched her inappropriately. A.H. testified that Brennan's behavior became intrusive and invasive, including "snuggling" with her in bed and touching her inappropriately. A.H.'s grandmother and mother provided corroborating testimony. Brennan denied the allegations but admitted to some of the physical contact described by A.H.The jury found Brennan not guilty of the four counts of sexual assault but guilty of the one count of sexual abuse of children. Brennan moved for a new trial, arguing that the conduct established at trial did not constitute sexual abuse of children under the relevant statute. The District Court agreed, finding insufficient evidence to uphold the jury's verdict and granted Brennan's motion for a new trial, dismissing the conviction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The court held that Brennan's conduct of watching A.H. change clothes constituted a "lewd exhibition" and a "depiction" of a child in a state of partial undress for the purpose of his own sexual gratification or to humiliate A.H. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and instructed the District Court to reinstate Brennan's conviction for sexual abuse of children. View "State v. Brennan" on Justia Law

Kevin Charles Walla was charged with Deliberate Homicide after shooting and killing Richard Allen Bowers in his apartment on December 31, 2019. Walla claimed he acted in self-defense, citing Bowers' history of drug use, criminal behavior, and aggression. The State sought to exclude Walla's testimony about Bowers' character. During the trial, the parties reached an agreement on certain evidentiary disputes and jury instructions, including a provision allowing Walla's counsel to make an offer of proof about Walla's testimony outside the jury's presence. However, Walla ultimately decided not to testify.The Sixth Judicial District Court, Sweet Grass County, presided over the trial. Walla's counsel agreed to strike the provision regarding the offer of proof after Walla decided not to testify. Walla also proposed a supplemental verdict form to ensure the jury's unanimous decision on his self-defense claim, which the court rejected, stating that the standard verdict form and jury instructions were sufficient. The jury found Walla guilty of Deliberate Homicide, and he was sentenced to 100 years in prison, with an additional 10-year Weapons Enhancement.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court did not improperly reject the procedural agreement's provision, as Walla's decision not to testify rendered the issue moot. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in rejecting the supplemental verdict form, as the jury instructions clearly required a unanimous verdict and adequately informed the jury of the State's burden to prove Walla's actions were not justified. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment and sentence. View "State v. Walla" on Justia Law

Bill B. Bokma, the petitioner, was arrested in December 2020 for felony driving under the influence of alcohol. He was released on the condition that he abstain from alcohol, which he failed to do, leading to another arrest. Bokma entered into a plea agreement with the State, which included alternative sentences contingent upon his acceptance into the Eighth Judicial District Adult Drug Treatment Court Program (ADTC). He pleaded guilty and was accepted into ADTC. However, Bokma violated the treatment court’s conditions, leading to a report of violation and a request for his termination from ADTC.The District Court initially dismissed the State’s petition to terminate Bokma from ADTC after he began engaging in the treatment program. However, due to repeated violations, the State again sought to terminate his participation in November 2022. Bokma stipulated that he was unable to complete ADTC, and the District Court revoked his suspended sentence, committing him to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for a three-year term with credit for twenty-seven days of jail time and eight days of elapsed time.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed Bokma’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, requesting additional credit for jail time and elapsed time. The court determined that Bokma was entitled to an additional twenty-two days of jail time credit, bringing the total to forty-nine days. The court also addressed the issue of whether the Montana Incentives and Interventions Grid (MIIG) should have been applied to Bokma’s revocation. The court concluded that although the District Court erred in classifying Bokma’s failure to complete ADTC as a non-compliance violation, the revocation was proper due to his repeated violations and failure to complete the treatment program.The Supreme Court granted Bokma’s petition in part, remanding the case to the District Court to amend its order to include the additional jail time credit. The court denied Bokma’s other claims and closed the matter. View "Bokma v. Olsen" on Justia Law

Beau Avidiya was convicted by a jury of Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Burglary, and Criminal Destruction of or Tampering with a Communication Device after breaking into his great-grandmother Myrtle Anderson's home, assaulting her, and stealing her purse. Anderson, who was 87 years old, suffered a broken finger and other injuries during the attack. She did not initially recognize her assailant but later evidence, including surveillance footage and green paint found on Avidiya, linked him to the crime.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court of Lincoln County presided over the trial. Avidiya requested jury instructions on the lesser-included offenses of Assault, Theft, and Trespass, but the District Court denied these requests, stating that the evidence did not support such instructions. The jury subsequently convicted Avidiya on all charges, and he was sentenced to twenty years with fifteen years suspended.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. Avidiya argued that the District Court abused its discretion by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offenses. The Supreme Court examined whether the District Court had erred in its decision, focusing on whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the lesser-included offense instructions.The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. It found that the evidence presented did not support the lesser-included offenses. The court noted that the violent nature of the assault and the circumstances of the burglary did not provide a rational basis for the jury to convict Avidiya of the lesser offenses instead of the greater ones. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment and sentence. View "State v. Avidiya" on Justia Law

Garrett Alan Lee, a 25-year-old, engaged in an online conversation with an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a 12-year-old girl. Lee discussed meeting the girl for sex and was apprehended by law enforcement when he arrived at the arranged location. He was charged with Sexual Abuse of Children under Montana law and pleaded guilty.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court sentenced Lee to 100 years at the Montana State Prison, with 65 years suspended, and imposed a 25-year parole restriction. Lee appealed, arguing that the mandatory 25-year parole restriction was unconstitutional and that the District Court violated his due process rights by considering information from a prior psychosexual examination not admitted into evidence.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that Lee's constitutional and statutory arguments concerning the mandatory parole restriction were not properly before the court because he was not sentenced under the mandatory minimum provision. Instead, the District Court imposed the parole restriction under its discretionary sentencing power. The court also found that Lee's due process rights were not violated, as he had the opportunity to rebut or correct any information in the presentence investigation report, and the information was not materially false.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment, concluding that Lee's sentence was legal and within the statutory parameters. The court declined to review the constitutional and statutory claims related to the mandatory parole restriction and did not find plain error in the due process claim. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

Joseph Eugene Garcia was charged with multiple counts of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual abuse of children, involving the repeated rape of an underage boy, C.C., over five years. On the day of the trial, Garcia entered an Alford plea to a single amended charge of felony sexual assault, and the State agreed to drop the original charges and recommend a sentence of forty years, with twenty years suspended. The plea agreement did not address the sex offender tier level designation.The District Court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) and a psychosexual evaluation (PSE), which were completed by Dr. Robert Page. Dr. Page recommended a tier level 1 sexual offender designation, indicating a low risk of re-offense. However, he noted limitations in the risk assessment tools and suggested that additional victims were likely. At the sentencing hearing, the State presented testimony from several witnesses, including Sergeant Kaylin Cunningham, who provided evidence of Garcia's grooming tactics and possession of items used to manipulate and control his victims. Victim impact statements from C.C. and his mother expressed concerns about Garcia's future risk to children.The District Court sentenced Garcia to forty years in prison, with twenty years suspended, and designated him as a tier level 2 sexual offender, citing the extensive use of grooming tactics and the likelihood of multiple victims. Garcia appealed, arguing that the District Court improperly considered evidence beyond the psychosexual evaluation report in determining his tier level designation.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that the District Court correctly interpreted the statute, which allows the court to consider a broad range of information, including victim impact statements and other relevant evidence, when designating a sexual offender tier level. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the District Court's designation of Garcia as a tier level 2 sexual offender. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Ronald L. Golas was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (fourth or subsequent offense), operating a motor vehicle while his license was suspended, and failure to carry proof of insurance. These charges stemmed from a one-vehicle crash where Golas was found with an open can of beer and a high alcohol concentration. He had prior DUI convictions and a suspended license. Golas pleaded not guilty and was released on bail with conditions. However, he failed to appear at pretrial conferences and had several positive alcohol tests, leading to a motion to revoke his release and the issuance of a bench warrant.The trial date was rescheduled multiple times due to various issues, including Golas's failure to resolve the outstanding warrant. Eventually, Golas was taken into custody, and a new trial date was set. He filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, which was denied. Golas later requested a change-of-plea hearing and entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the felony DUI charge in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges. He was sentenced to 24 months in the Department of Corrections and a consecutive 5-year suspended term in the Montana State Prison.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Golas waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial by not specifically reserving this right in his plea agreement. The court found that Golas's plea was voluntary and intelligent, and there were no jurisdictional defects. Consequently, the court affirmed the District Court's decision. View "State v. Golas" on Justia Law

David Damon pleaded guilty to felony incest and was sentenced to fifty years in prison with ten years suspended. His parole eligibility was contingent upon completing Phases I and II of the prison's sex offender treatment program. After ten years without being enrolled in Phase II, Damon filed a motion to modify his sentence to allow participation in an external residential treatment program. The Eighth Judicial District Court denied his motion, citing a lack of authority to modify the judgment. Damon appealed.The Cascade County District Court initially sentenced Damon in February 2014 after he pleaded guilty to one count of felony incest, dismissing two other charges as part of a plea agreement. Damon was designated a Tier II sex offender and required to complete specific treatment phases before being eligible for parole. In 2017, the Montana Legislature mandated the Department of Corrections (DOC) to adopt evidence-based programs, leading to the replacement of the SABER program with the SO-ICPM program in 2023. Damon argued that the elimination of the SABER program left him unable to meet his sentence requirements and sought modification to attend a residential program.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the District Court lacked the legal authority to modify Damon's sentence, as the DOC's programming changes did not render the sentence factually erroneous. The court noted that the new SO-ICPM program provided equivalent treatment to the SABER program, allowing Damon to fulfill his sentence requirements. The court also clarified that any request for placement in a residential treatment program must be made through the DOC, not the court. Thus, the District Court's denial of Damon's motion was upheld. View "State v. Damon" on Justia Law

Danielle Wood was charged with deliberate homicide for the shooting death of Matthew LaFriniere. The State alleged that Wood purposely or knowingly caused LaFriniere's death by shooting him with a firearm. The case involved a tumultuous relationship between Wood and LaFriniere, including a custody battle over their child. On the evening of May 2, 2018, Wood received a text message purportedly from LaFriniere, stating he was delayed and instructing her to keep their child. Later that evening, LaFriniere was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds.The Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders County, convicted Wood of deliberate homicide. Wood appealed, raising several issues, including the sufficiency of evidence for the State's alternative theory of accountability for deliberate homicide and the clarity of the jury verdict form. The District Court had allowed the State to amend the Information to include an alternative theory of accountability, which Wood contested. The jury was instructed on both direct deliberate homicide and accountability for deliberate homicide, but the verdict form did not distinguish between the two theories.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The Court found that the District Court erroneously submitted the State's alternative theory of accountability to the jury without sufficient supporting evidence. The Court also found that the verdict form provided to the jury was ambiguous and did not allow the jury to unambiguously declare Wood's guilt or innocence regarding each of the charged offenses or theories of criminal liability. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed Wood's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Wood" on Justia Law