Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a youth, W.D., who was adjudicated as a delinquent in the First Judicial District Youth Court, Lewis and Clark County, after admitting to sexual assault in 2019. Following unsuccessful residential placements and a probation revocation, the Youth Court committed W.D. to the Department of Corrections (DOC) until age 18, with probationary conditions to remain until age 21 and deferred sex offender registration. Upon release from Pine Hills at age 18, W.D. returned to community supervision. The State later sought a hearing under § 41-5-208, MCA, to transfer jurisdiction to the district court and supervisory responsibility to adult probation, alleging multiple violations of the previous order but without filing a formal petition to revoke probation under § 41-5-1431, MCA.After the hearing, the Youth Court found transfer appropriate and ordered jurisdiction and supervisory responsibility transferred to the district court and adult probation until W.D. reached age 25. Additionally, the Youth Court committed W.D. to the DOC until age 25, recommended placement at the Missoula Assessment and Sanction Center for sex-offender treatment, and required him to register as a Tier II sexual offender during non-incarceration periods. W.D. appealed, arguing that the Youth Court exceeded its authority under § 41-5-208, MCA, by imposing new custodial and registration requirements without proper procedural protections.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the Youth Court’s interpretation and application of the Montana Youth Court Act de novo. It held that § 41-5-208, MCA, only authorizes transfer of jurisdiction and supervisory responsibility and does not permit a youth court to impose a new custodial disposition or additional conditions, such as sex-offender registration, at a transfer hearing without following procedures for probation revocation under § 41-5-1431, MCA. The Supreme Court reversed the Youth Court’s order and remanded for amendment to strike the added DOC commitment, extended supervision, and registration requirement. View "In re W.D." on Justia Law

A father was accused of sexually abusing his minor daughter over a period of years, with a specific incident occurring on April 15, 2020, when the daughter, J.V., was 14 years old. The next day, J.V. disclosed the abuse to her mother via text message, and a sexual assault examination was performed at a hospital, where J.V. provided a narrative statement detailing the incident. Physical evidence, including J.V.’s blood on the father’s penile swab and the father’s semen on J.V.’s bedding, was collected. The father was charged with multiple counts of incest, and at trial, both J.V. and her mother testified about the events and the disclosure. The State introduced J.V.’s narrative from the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Report and the text messages as evidence.In the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, the defendant objected to the admission of J.V.’s statements in the SANE Report and the text messages, arguing they were inadmissible hearsay. The District Court overruled these objections, admitting both as evidence, and allowed the jury to review the SANE Report during deliberations. The jury convicted the defendant on two counts of incest and acquitted him on a third. He was sentenced to two consecutive 100-year prison terms.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the admission of the SANE Report and text messages, and allowing the jury to examine the SANE Report during deliberations, constituted reversible error. The Court held that it was error to admit the SANE Report under the medical diagnosis exception and to provide it to the jury during deliberations, but these errors were harmless because other properly admitted evidence proved the same facts. The Court also found the text messages were properly admitted as relevant evidence. The conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Veltkamp" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who, after drinking alcohol at a public lake with his family, drove away with his wife and children, attracting the attention of other beachgoers who reported his behavior to law enforcement. When an officer found the vehicle on the roadside, the defendant was outside, agitated and armed, and engaged in a heated argument with his wife. The officer attempted to intervene, deploying a TASER, but the defendant remained combative until backup arrived and detained him. While in the back of the patrol car, the defendant spat throughout the vehicle. He was charged with several offenses, including three counts of felony criminal child endangerment, one felony count of criminal endangerment, one misdemeanor count of criminal mischief for spitting in the patrol car, and one misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct.The Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, presided over a jury trial where the jury convicted the defendant of all counts except the felony criminal endangerment. At sentencing, the court imposed prison terms and fines, including a fine for the misdemeanor criminal mischief. The defendant requested suspension of fines and fees, citing his incarceration and lack of future earning ability. The district court nonetheless found the defendant able to pay and imposed the financial obligations.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether sufficient evidence supported the misdemeanor criminal mischief conviction and whether the lower court properly inquired into the defendant’s ability to pay fines and fees. The Supreme Court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the criminal mischief conviction, as no evidence showed that the spitting caused damage or pecuniary loss to the vehicle. The Court also determined that the district court had not conducted an adequate inquiry into the defendant’s ability to pay. The Supreme Court reversed the criminal mischief conviction and remanded for further proceedings regarding the imposition of fines and fees. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was charged with three counts of felony sexual assault based on allegations made by his niece, S.M. The incidents occurred at the defendant’s mother’s house in Laurel, Montana, between 2015 and 2017, during the defendant’s annual summer visits. S.M. disclosed the assaults in 2020 after a school assembly on sexual assault, leading to a police investigation. At trial, S.M. described three incidents, including one where she was standing and the defendant’s hand touched the same area as during a previous assault. The State presented expert testimony on the delayed disclosure and memory issues common among child victims. No physical evidence was collected.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, presided over the jury trial. After the State’s case-in-chief, the defense moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on Count I, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove knowing or purposeful sexual contact for that incident. The District Court denied the motion, concluding that a rational juror could find the essential elements of the offense, and submitted all three counts to the jury. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in denying the motion to dismiss Count I. Applying a de novo standard, the Court held that, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on Count I. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling and the defendant’s conviction on all three counts. View "State v. Morrissey" on Justia Law

A woman in Great Falls, Montana, made a frantic 9-1-1 call pleading for help because her former partner had locked her out of their residence, and had “our” baby inside. The call abruptly ended, and police responding to the scene were unable to reestablish contact. Officers spoke to a neighbor who referenced a disturbance, and then encountered loud, indiscernible screaming from the involved apartment. Upon identifying themselves and requesting entry, the occupant, Phillip Friscia, responded angrily, repeatedly opening and closing the door, sometimes holding the child, and stated he had the right to defend himself from people in his house. Officers, concerned for the safety of those inside, forcibly entered the residence, apprehended Friscia, and found the woman and child unharmed.The State charged Friscia with felony threatening an officer and misdemeanor destruction of a communication device. Friscia moved to suppress evidence, arguing the entry was unlawful and not justified by exigent circumstances, and challenged the constitutionality of the statute under which he was charged. The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, denied both motions, finding the police entry justified by exigent circumstances based on the totality of evidence and the statute constitutionally valid. Friscia entered an Alford plea, reserving his right to appeal these decisions.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the appeal. It held that the District Court’s factual findings regarding exigent circumstances and probable cause were not clearly erroneous and properly supported the denial of the suppression motion. The Supreme Court further held that Montana’s statute, requiring a subjective mental state, was not facially unconstitutional or overbroad, and did not violate the First Amendment under Counterman v. Colorado. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s rulings and Friscia’s conviction. View "State v. Friscia" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted by a jury in 2011 on multiple charges related to a fatal vehicular incident and sentenced to forty years in prison. She challenged her convictions through direct appeal and postconviction proceedings in Montana state courts, arguing issues related to the confrontation of witnesses, undisclosed expert testimony, ineffective assistance of counsel, and alleged evidence suppression. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed her convictions and rejected her postconviction claims, finding no constitutional violations.After exhausting state remedies, the appellant sought federal habeas relief. The United States District Court for the District of Montana granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus, finding ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to hire an accident reconstructionist, and ordered the state to either retry the appellant or release her. The state moved to renew proceedings in state court, at which point the appellant moved to substitute the presiding judge. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the federal district court’s grant of habeas relief and upheld the original convictions, determining there was no ineffective assistance of counsel or Brady violation.Following the Ninth Circuit’s reversal, the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula County reinstated the appellant’s convictions and ordered her return to custody. The Montana Supreme Court reviewed whether the District Court erred in reinstating the convictions in light of the appellant’s pending motion for judicial substitution. The Montana Supreme Court held that, because the federal habeas relief was reversed and there was no new criminal action or trial, the statutory requirements for substitution of a judge were not triggered and the appellant was not entitled to substitution. However, the Court found the appellant is entitled to respond to the State’s motion to reinstate her conviction. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Garding" on Justia Law

A young child, P.P., suffered severe injuries including brain trauma, rib and femur fractures, and other physical harm between June and October 2021 while under the care of Katherine Anne Proctor, her mother. Medical personnel observed bruising and abrasions on multiple occasions, and expert analysis concluded that P.P.'s injuries were consistent with non-accidental trauma (NAT), including abusive head trauma. Medical testimony established that the injuries resulted from acceleration/deceleration forces, such as shaking, and that they could not be explained by ordinary accidents or underlying medical conditions. The timeline of injury suggested that Proctor had exclusive control of P.P. during the critical period when the most acute injury occurred.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis & Clark County presided over Proctor’s trial. The court admitted expert testimony related to NAT, denied a motion to suppress cell phone evidence acquired under a broad warrant, and allowed certain prosecutorial statements regarding Proctor’s character and internet searches. After a jury verdict finding Proctor guilty of felony assault on a minor, Proctor’s motion for a new trial was denied, and she was sentenced to twenty years in prison.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed four issues: the admissibility of expert NAT testimony, the denial of suppression of evidence from a general warrant, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court held that admitting expert testimony on NAT was proper under Montana law, which does not require general scientific acceptance for admissibility. The Court found the cell phone search warrant overbroad and unparticularized but determined the admission of related evidence was harmless error and did not contribute to the conviction. Prosecutorial comments during closing were improper but did not prejudice Proctor’s right to a fair trial. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected. The conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Proctor" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of multiple felony charges related to sexual abuse, including three counts of sexual intercourse without consent and one count of sexual assault, based on allegations by a minor, I.A., that he had abused her using a game called "Truth or Dare." His defense asserted that I.A. fabricated the allegations by accusing him of the same conduct that another man, Cody Hill, had perpetrated against her two weeks earlier. The defendant argued that I.A. disliked him for providing drugs to her mother and sought to protect her mother by removing him from her life. Expert testimony was presented during the trial regarding victim selection and the increased likelihood of revictimization for children previously abused.After the initial conviction in the District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District, Ravalli County, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Montana. The Supreme Court previously reversed the conviction in State v. Twardoski, 2021 MT 179, finding that the defendant was wrongly barred from presenting evidence about I.A.’s prior abuse by another person, violating his right to confront his accuser and present a complete defense. The case was remanded for a new trial before a different judge. At retrial, the sexual abuse of children charge was dropped, but the defendant was again convicted of the remaining charges. He received concurrent 50-year sentences with no time suspended and a 25-year parole restriction.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, the defendant raised two issues: ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to statistical expert testimony, and whether the more severe sentence imposed after retrial violated his right to due process. The Supreme Court declined to review the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, finding plausible tactical reasons for counsel’s lack of objection. The Court held that the increased sentence was not the result of judicial vindictiveness, as there were legitimate, nonvindictive reasons for the parole restriction. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "State v. Twardoski" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent and Solicitation of Tampering with Physical Evidence after living with the victim, her husband, and their children. The offense occurred when the victim, BB, alleged that the defendant raped her while they were alone in the apartment. BB initially confided in her ex-husband and later her husband before reporting the incident to the police, leading to a recorded interview in which the defendant admitted to intercourse but claimed it was consensual. The case involved text messages referencing BB’s past experiences and issues of credibility.Prior to trial, the State moved to exclude evidence of the victim’s prior sexual history under Montana’s rape shield law. The defendant sought to introduce text messages and statements suggesting BB had previously made false rape accusations and been unfaithful during a prior marriage, arguing these were relevant to her credibility and motive. The Eighth Judicial District Court granted the State’s motion in limine, finding the defendant’s offers speculative and unsupported, and excluded this evidence. During trial, the court allowed the introduction of some text messages but maintained the exclusion of evidence regarding prior false allegations and infidelity due to the lack of a proper offer of proof. The court also imposed a discovery sanction when the defendant attempted to introduce undisclosed investigator notes about the victim’s alleged infidelity. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced, with several probation conditions restricting contact with minors.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the exclusion of evidence about the victim’s past sexual history and prior rape allegations, holding there was no abuse of discretion because the defendant failed to provide the required evidentiary foundation. The court also upheld the discovery sanction for failure to disclose evidence. However, it reversed and remanded probation conditions restricting contact with minors, finding no nexus between the crime and those restrictions, and required further findings if such conditions are reimposed. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "State v. Morris" on Justia Law

The defendant, a seventy-year-old man with a long history of alcohol use, was stopped by law enforcement after driving erratically and making multiple traffic violations. He was observed to be impaired, failed a field sobriety test, and later refused breath and blood tests, leading to a warrant for a blood draw that revealed a blood alcohol content over three times the legal limit. Investigation revealed he was driving with a suspended license and had three prior DUI convictions. He was charged with felony DUI (fourth or subsequent offense) and driving while suspended, but the latter charge was dismissed in exchange for his guilty plea to the DUI charge.The Montana Sixteenth Judicial District Court sentenced him to thirteen months with the Department of Corrections, recommended placement in an alcohol treatment program, and imposed a consecutive four-year suspended sentence. The court also imposed the statutory minimum fine of $5,000 but suspended half of it due to the defendant’s financial circumstances. The defendant appealed the imposition of the fine, arguing that the statute mandating the fine was unconstitutional based on recent case law. He maintained that the fine should not have been imposed without proper consideration of his ability to pay.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the defendant did not waive his right to appellate review of the fine by agreeing to it in the plea agreement, as subsequent case law developments questioned the constitutionality of the statute. The Court reaffirmed that the sentencing court must impose the mandatory fine under the statute, then determine the defendant’s ability to pay, and may suspend any portion of the fine accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of the $5,000 fine but vacated the portion of the judgment relating to the fine and remanded to the District Court for explicit findings on the defendant’s ability to pay before determining how much of the fine should be suspended. View "State v. Hagberg" on Justia Law