Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The State of Montana charged Matthew Jason Welch with six counts of Deceptive Practices and four counts of Theft by Deception. Welch faced varying prison terms depending on the value of the property involved. On January 20, 2022, Welch entered a non-binding plea agreement, pleading guilty to all counts. The agreement recommended a sentence of 10 years with five suspended for each count, with some sentences running concurrently and others consecutively. However, the District Court rejected this recommendation and sentenced Welch to 10 years for each count, all running consecutively, resulting in a net sentence of 50 years with 50 suspended. Welch appealed the four illegal sentences, leading to a remand for resentencing within statutory limits.The District Court resentenced Welch to three years for each of the four counts, all running consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 30 years with 30 suspended and 12 years DOC. Welch then moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing it was involuntary due to the illegal sentence, but the District Court denied the motion.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Welch was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because the State accepted a reduced sentence within legal limits, and Welch received the benefit of his bargain. The court also noted that Welch was aware the court was not bound by the plea agreement. The court affirmed the denial of Welch's motion to withdraw his guilty plea but remanded to correct the restitution amounts in the amended judgment to reflect the court's oral pronouncement. View "State v. Welch" on Justia Law

The defendant, Justin Guy Zeno Shawn Wolf Mason, was convicted of felony Partner and Family Member Assault (PFMA), misdemeanor Unlawful Restraint, and misdemeanor Resisting Arrest. He received a suspended five-year sentence for the PFMA charge, with probationary conditions, and concurrent six-month suspended sentences for the misdemeanors. Mason was required to comply with all laws and maintain contact with probation and parole.The Tenth Judicial District Court, Fergus County, revoked Mason's suspended sentence after he failed to report to probation and parole and was charged with misdemeanor assault following an altercation with a security guard. Mason argued that the court erred in finding him in violation of his probation terms, denying his motion to introduce video evidence, and revoking his suspended sentence.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the State had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Mason violated the conditions of his suspended sentence by being charged with misdemeanor assault. The court noted that a single violation is sufficient to support revocation. The court also held that the exclusion of the body camera footage was not prejudicial to Mason, as his testimony established conduct meriting revocation. Additionally, the court declined to exercise plain error review regarding the banishment provision, as it was part of a separate pre-trial diversion agreement and not directly related to the conditions Mason was accused of violating.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of Mason's suspended sentence, concluding that the State met its evidentiary burden, the exclusion of the video was not prejudicial, and the District Court did not commit plain error. View "State v. Mason" on Justia Law

The case involves Lewis Leon Bryson, who was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent (SIWOC) following a jury trial. On May 2, 2020, Bryson's neighbor observed him spraying a naked and screaming Valerie Moreni with a hose in his backyard. When police arrived, Moreni was found unresponsive and covered by a blanket. She later claimed Bryson had raped her. Medical examination revealed she was highly intoxicated and had injuries consistent with her allegations. Bryson was arrested and charged with aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (ASIWOC), SIWOC, tampering with evidence, and obstructing a peace officer.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, presided over the trial. Bryson and Moreni provided conflicting testimonies about their relationship and the events leading up to the incident. Bryson claimed their interactions were consensual and that Moreni was aware of their sexual activities. The jury found Bryson guilty of SIWOC and obstructing a peace officer.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. Bryson argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not proposing correct jury instructions and that the District Court erred by excluding evidence about Moreni’s drinking habits and alcohol withdrawal symptoms. The Supreme Court held that the jury instructions were correct and that Bryson’s counsel was not deficient. The court also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence about Moreni’s past drinking habits, as it allowed sufficient evidence regarding her condition and credibility.The Supreme Court affirmed Bryson’s conviction, concluding that the instructions and evidentiary rulings were appropriate and did not prejudice Bryson’s defense. View "State v. Bryson" on Justia Law

Christopher Ledeau was charged with Burglary and Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA) after breaking into his ex-girlfriend's home and threatening her. He pled guilty to the PFMA charge, and the burglary charge was dismissed. At sentencing, the District Court imposed a three-year commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections, with all but 30 days suspended, and included several probation conditions, including conditions 29 and 31, which Ledeau objected to.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Cascade County imposed conditions 29 and 31 despite expressing reservations about their appropriateness. Condition 29 allowed for the search of Ledeau's electronic devices if there was reasonable suspicion he was attempting to contact the victim. Condition 31 required Ledeau to disclose his intimate partner relationships and sign an Intimate Partner Disclosure and Offensive Contact Contract. The District Court encouraged Ledeau to appeal these conditions to obtain input from the Montana Supreme Court.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the District Court abused its discretion in imposing conditions 29 and 31. The Court held that condition 29 was overly broad and lacked a nexus to Ledeau's offense, as there was no evidence he used electronic means to contact the victim. The Court also found that condition 31 was unnecessary, overly broad, and redundant to other probation conditions, such as registration as a violent offender and participation in counseling. The Court reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case to strike conditions 29 and 31 from the Sentencing Order and Judgment. View "State v. C. Ledeau" on Justia Law

Yanbin Bao, a resident of South Carolina, was charged with seven counts of felony sex trafficking and one count of felony labor trafficking in Montana. Bao allegedly operated a prostitution ring out of a massage parlor in Missoula, Montana, with her husband, Richard Bushey. Law enforcement seized multiple electronic devices from Bao, Bushey, and another suspect, Hui Wang, during their investigation. The data extraction from these devices took longer than ten days due to the complexity of decrypting the devices.The Fourth Judicial District Court of Missoula County ordered the suppression of evidence obtained from four of the electronic devices, ruling that the State had violated the ten-day time limit for serving warrants as established by Montana Code Annotated § 46-5-225. The District Court interpreted the statute to mean that the search and analysis of the devices had to be completed within ten days of the warrant's issuance.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the warrant was served within the ten-day limit when it was delivered to the forensic analyst on July 11, 2023, the day after its issuance. The Court clarified that the process of decrypting and analyzing the data from the lawfully seized devices did not need to be completed within the ten-day period. The Supreme Court concluded that the District Court erred in its interpretation of the statute and reversed the order to suppress the evidence, remanding the case for continuation of proceedings. View "State v. Y. Bao" on Justia Law

Heather Rose Johnson was convicted of assault on a peace officer, driving under the influence, driving while suspended or revoked, and expired registration after a jury trial. The incident occurred on January 24, 2021, when Johnson, after drinking beer with a friend, drove to a gas station and was reported by a 911 caller for appearing intoxicated. Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office Sergeant Clarence Jessop stopped Johnson’s vehicle, observed signs of intoxication, and arrested her. During the arrest, Johnson kicked Sergeant Jessop, leading to the assault charge.The Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, admitted the 911 call in its entirety over Johnson’s hearsay objections. Johnson was convicted on all charges and sentenced. The court’s written judgment included an “Audit Hearing” condition not mentioned in the oral pronouncement of the sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court determined that the admission of the 911 call violated Johnson’s confrontation rights under the U.S. and Montana Constitutions because the caller’s statements that Johnson was intoxicated and about to commit DUI were testimonial. However, the court found this error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence against Johnson, including video footage and testimony from law enforcement officers.The court affirmed Johnson’s convictions but remanded the case to the District Court to strike the “Audit Hearing” condition from the written judgment, as it conflicted with the oral pronouncement of the sentence. View "State v. H. Johnson" on Justia Law

Tyrone Lee Risher began serving a five-year sentence with the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) in May 2018. In October 2021, he was conditionally released to the Butte Prerelease Center (BPRC). On February 18, 2022, Risher failed to return to BPRC, leading to an administrative warrant for his arrest. On February 22, 2022, the State charged Risher with escape, and a warrant was issued, stating he was not a flight risk and would be released on his own recognizance for the escape charge but held for his underlying sentence. Risher was arrested on April 29, 2022, and held in the Butte-Silver Bow County Detention Center until his return to Montana State Prison (MSP). He appeared before the Powell County Justice Court on May 24, 2022, and was released on his own recognizance for the escape charge but held for his underlying sentence.Risher was convicted of felony escape on March 6, 2023, and remanded to DOC custody pending sentencing. On April 25, 2023, the District Court sentenced him to 30 months in DOC custody, consecutive to his existing sentence, and denied his request for credit for time served, stating he was never held on the restriction of bail.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Risher was entitled to credit for time served from his arrest on April 29, 2022, until his release on his own recognizance on May 24, 2022. The court also noted that it was unclear whether Risher was entitled to credit for time served between his conviction and sentencing and remanded the case to the District Court to determine this. The decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "State v. T. Risher" on Justia Law

In January 2016, the State of Montana charged Lavodrick Terelle Hogues with felony aggravated promotion of prostitution involving a 17-year-old female, Jane Doe. The charge stemmed from an undercover operation where officers discovered Doe and another woman, Phylicia Zubia, offering escort services online. Evidence linked Hogues to the operation through phone records, MoneyGram transfers, and other communications.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Yellowstone County handled the initial proceedings. Hogues faced multiple delays due to changes in legal representation and his own absconding. He eventually requested to represent himself, which the court granted four days before trial. The court also allowed Jane Doe to testify via remote video due to travel burdens and pandemic concerns, despite Hogues' objections.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court's decision to allow Hogues to represent himself, finding that he had made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. However, the court reversed the decision to admit Jane Doe's remote testimony. The court held that the State failed to demonstrate that her in-person testimony was impracticable or that remote testimony was necessary to further an important public policy. The court emphasized the importance of face-to-face confrontation under the Sixth Amendment and Montana Constitution.The Montana Supreme Court concluded that the denial of Hogues' right to face-to-face confrontation was not harmless error, given Jane Doe's critical role as the alleged victim. Consequently, the court reversed Hogues' conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. L. Hogues" on Justia Law

Dustin Lee Seyler was arrested on January 27, 2022, for two counts of burglary and was held without a warrant. The Justice Court held an initial appearance the next day and set a preliminary hearing for February 7, 2022, with bail set at $100,000. Seyler's counsel filed a notice of appearance and a request for discovery on February 1, 2022. The State filed a motion for leave to file an information on February 3, 2022, which the District Court granted on February 10, 2022. Seyler filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the thirteen-day delay between his initial appearance and the District Court's grant of leave was unreasonable. The District Court denied the motion, and Seyler pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal. At sentencing, the District Court imposed various fees, which Seyler contested.The Twentieth Judicial District Court denied Seyler's motion to dismiss, finding the thirteen-day delay reasonable. Seyler appealed, arguing that the delay violated § 46-10-105, MCA, and that the District Court erred in imposing certain fees not mentioned in the oral pronouncement of his sentence.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Seyler's motion to dismiss. The Court found that the delay was not unreasonable given the circumstances and that Seyler had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the delay. However, the Court agreed with Seyler that the $50 pre-sentence investigation fee and the $200 cost of prosecution fee included in the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement of his sentence. The Court affirmed Seyler's conviction but reversed and remanded for the District Court to amend the judgment by striking these fees. View "State v. Seyler" on Justia Law