Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

On the evening of May 2, 2021, and into the early hours of May 3, 2021, an incident occurred at the home of Judy Foster involving her adoptive son, Donald Edward Foster, and M.W., an 18-year-old acquaintance. Foster, armed with a knife and later a handgun, threatened both women, restrained and bound them, and moved them to the basement. He isolated Judy in a bathroom and then committed multiple distinct acts of sexual assault against M.W., including oral, anal, and attempted vaginal penetration, each separated by time, location, and intervening events. After several hours, M.W. convinced Foster to leave the house, and he was apprehended by law enforcement.The State charged Foster with multiple counts, including aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, attempted sexual intercourse without consent, and aggravated kidnapping. During jury selection, the State disclosed newly discovered evidence from Foster’s cellmate, leading to an in-chambers discussion from which Foster was absent due to safety concerns. Foster’s counsel moved for a continuance, which the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County, granted. Foster later ratified this decision. At trial, the State did not use the cellmate’s evidence, and the jury convicted Foster on all counts.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed Foster’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, statutory violations regarding multiple charges from the same transaction, and due process violations for his absence from a critical stage. The court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to multiple charges, as each offense was based on distinct acts. The court also found that Foster’s absence from the in-chambers discussion was harmless error, as he was promptly informed and ratified the decision, and the evidence in question was not used at trial. The court affirmed Foster’s convictions. View "State v. Foster" on Justia Law

Cole Michael Jacob was charged with felony indecent exposure after exposing himself to a minor. Initially pleading not guilty, Jacob later executed a plea agreement to enter an Alford plea in exchange for a recommended 10-year sentence with 6 years suspended and the withdrawal of the State's intent to seek persistent felony offender (PFO) status. However, Jacob requested more time to discuss the agreement and eventually decided not to change his plea. On the day of his trial, Jacob entered an Alford plea under a new agreement, where the State agreed not to seek a sentence exceeding 20 years and to withdraw its PFO notice.The Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, held a sentencing hearing where the State recommended a 20-year sentence and presented a victim impact statement from the victim’s father. Jacob objected to the statement being read, claiming he had not received a copy. The court allowed the statement, and Jacob was sentenced to 15 years at the Montana State Prison with a requirement to complete sex offender treatment before being eligible for parole.Jacob appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, arguing that his due process rights were violated by the reading of the victim impact statement and that he should have been sentenced under the initial plea agreement, claiming he was not mentally competent to reject it. The Supreme Court found that Jacob’s due process rights were not violated as he did not allege any false information in the victim impact statement. Additionally, the court determined that Jacob did not preserve his argument regarding the plea agreement for appeal, as he did not raise the issue of his mental competence to reject the agreement before the District Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "State v. Jacob" on Justia Law

Tyler Brandon Matthews was driving in Huntley, Montana, on December 30, 2019, when Corporal Bethany Richter observed several behaviors that led her to believe he was impaired. Matthews made a slow, wide turn, swerved between the center and fog lines, drove unusually slow, suddenly accelerated, and failed to maintain a consistent speed. Richter initiated a stop, resulting in Matthews's arrest and charge for driving under the influence.In Yellowstone County Justice Court, Matthews moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing that Richter's observations did not constitute particularized suspicion. He claimed that his driving behaviors were normal responses to road conditions. The Justice Court held an evidentiary hearing where Richter testified about her observations and training. The court viewed dash cam footage and denied Matthews's motion, concluding that Richter's training and observations provided sufficient particularized suspicion. The Thirteenth Judicial District Court affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case, examining the Justice Court's findings of fact and application of the law. The court found that Richter's testimony and the totality of the circumstances supported particularized suspicion for the stop. The court also noted a clerical error in the written judgment, which incorrectly stated a $2,000 fine instead of the $600 fine pronounced orally. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case for correction of the written judgment to reflect the $600 fine. View "State v. Matthews" on Justia Law

In the early morning of July 18, 2022, Deputy Anthony Jenson of the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office observed a yellow Volkswagen GTI with Oregon plates at a gas station. The vehicle had been under surveillance since a Border Patrol stop on July 5, 2022. The Volkswagen exhibited suspicious behavior, such as abruptly pulling into another gas station without refueling and making a series of unusual turns. Detective Brandon Holzer, who was also monitoring the vehicle, eventually found it parked in the brush off a dirt road. Upon approaching the vehicle, Holzer detected the smell of burnt methamphetamine and other substances, leading to a search that uncovered drugs and paraphernalia.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, denied Herzog’s motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that Detective Holzer had a particularized suspicion to stop the vehicle. Herzog subsequently entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs while preserving her right to appeal the suppression ruling.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case, focusing on whether the District Court relied on clearly erroneous findings of fact in denying the motion to suppress. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that the District Court’s factual findings were supported by substantial credible evidence. The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including the vehicle’s evasive maneuvers and irregular parking, provided Detective Holzer with sufficient particularized suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. Thus, the evidence obtained from the search was admissible. View "State v. H. Herzog" on Justia Law

Christopher Lapointe was arrested on July 24, 2020, for driving under the influence (DUI) in Montana, with a blood alcohol content of .203. The State found that Lapointe had six prior DUI convictions in California and charged him with Felony DUI (fourth or subsequent offense) under Montana law. Lapointe moved to dismiss the felony charge, arguing that California's DUI statute was not sufficiently similar to Montana's DUI statute, and thus his prior California convictions should not count as prior convictions for felony enhancement purposes.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court of Gallatin County denied Lapointe's motion to dismiss on March 6, 2023, finding that his California convictions could be used for sentence enhancement. Lapointe pled guilty to Felony DUI but reserved the right to appeal the ruling on his motion. On April 24, 2023, the District Court sentenced him to 49 months with the Department of Corrections, with three years suspended.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and held that California's DUI statute is sufficiently similar to Montana's DUI statutes to support a felony DUI charge. The court noted that both statutes define intoxication similarly and that the place of offense element in California's statute, which includes both public and private property, is sufficiently similar to Montana's requirement that the offense occurs on public ways. The court affirmed the District Court's order denying Lapointe's motion to dismiss the felony enhancement. View "State v. C. Lapointe" on Justia Law

Nicole Lee Hunt was observed by Detective Nicholas Monaco of the Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office driving a vehicle without license plates. Monaco had prior intelligence linking Hunt and her residence, Apartment 1, to drug activity, specifically methamphetamine trafficking. During the traffic stop, Hunt exhibited signs of nervousness, had glassy red eyes, and made inconsistent statements about her activities. Monaco expanded the stop into a drug investigation, conducted a canine sniff, and found a package containing methamphetamine in Hunt’s vehicle.The Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, denied Hunt’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, finding that Monaco had particularized suspicion to expand the traffic stop into a drug investigation. During the trial, Hunt testified that she knew the package contained drugs but claimed it belonged to her dealer, Trent Parker, and denied any intent to distribute. The State called Katrina Conway as a rebuttal witness, who testified that Hunt had previously sold her methamphetamine. The District Court allowed this testimony, concluding that Hunt’s testimony opened the door to evidence of her prior bad acts. The jury found Hunt guilty of felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s denial of Hunt’s suppression motion, agreeing that there was particularized suspicion to justify the expanded investigation. However, the Supreme Court found that the District Court erred in allowing Conway’s rebuttal testimony, as Hunt’s cross-examination responses did not open the door to such evidence. The Supreme Court reversed Hunt’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. N. Hunt" on Justia Law

The defendant returned home after a period away and, while intoxicated, became upset upon discovering his brother’s marijuana plants in his basement. After confronting his brother, the defendant visited a neighbor’s house, where he found the neighbor’s daughter and another individual, Bill, using methamphetamine. Concerned that the neighbor, recently released from prison, could get into trouble, the defendant confronted those present. A verbal altercation escalated, resulting in the defendant punching Bill unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, Bill struck the defendant with a hammer, leading to a physical struggle involving the defendant’s son and friend. The group retreated outside, but Bill followed, allegedly threatening to kill the defendant and his family. The defendant’s son retrieved a gun, which the defendant used to shoot and kill Bill after warning him to stop approaching.The Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders County, presided over the trial. The defense did not object to the jury instructions regarding self-defense and the use of force to prevent a forcible felony, and stipulated to the remaining instructions. The jury found the defendant guilty of deliberate homicide with a dangerous weapon. The defendant appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by not providing a specific defense of others instruction and that his counsel was ineffective for not requesting one.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury, as the instructions given adequately covered the law regarding self-defense and defense of others through the “forcible felony” instruction. The Court also found no ineffective assistance of counsel, as there was a plausible justification for counsel’s actions and no reasonable probability that a different instruction would have changed the outcome. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. C. Rossbach" on Justia Law

In 1992, the defendant was sentenced to 100 years in prison for deliberate homicide, with an additional 10-year enhancement for weapon use. In 2008, he became parole eligible but was consistently denied parole. In 2018, he planned an escape from prison, involving two former prisoners. He used a cellphone to coordinate the escape, but prison staff discovered his plan and transferred him to more secure housing. Despite this, he continued to communicate with one of the former prisoners to delete incriminating evidence.The Third Judicial District Court in Powell County found the defendant guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Escape and Conspiracy to Commit Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence. He was sentenced to 8 years for each count, to run concurrently but consecutively to his prior sentence. The court dismissed charges of Transferring of Illegal Articles and Solicitation to Commit Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Person. The defendant appealed, arguing his sentence violated his First Amendment rights and that there was insufficient evidence for the tampering conviction. He also sought pretrial credit for time served.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the defendant did not properly object to his sentence on First Amendment grounds during the trial, and thus did not preserve the issue for appeal. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the tampering conviction, as the defendant's actions demonstrated an intent to delete incriminating evidence. Lastly, the court ruled that the defendant was not entitled to pretrial credit for time served, as he was already serving a sentence for a prior conviction and was not detained specifically for the new charges. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "State v. Demarie" on Justia Law

In May 2020, Tommy Jonathan Seth Dellar was receiving dialysis treatment at DaVita Dialysis when he exhibited symptoms of PTSD. After being asked to lower his noise level by technician Ashley Cray, Dellar demanded to be taken off the machine and made threatening statements towards Cray and others in the facility. Law enforcement found Dellar outside the center, where he reiterated his threats. Dellar was charged with felony intimidation under Montana law.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Cascade County held a one-day jury trial in November 2022. Dellar moved for a directed verdict based on insufficient evidence, which the court denied. Dellar also requested that disorderly conduct be considered as a lesser-included offense, but the court rejected this request. The jury found Dellar guilty of felony intimidation. At sentencing, Dellar requested a waiver of all fees, and the State stipulated to waive all except the $50 victim surcharge, which the court imposed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether Dellar had the intended purpose to cause Cray to perform the act of removing him from dialysis when he made his statements. The court also held that disorderly conduct is not a lesser-included offense of intimidation as a matter of law, as each offense requires proof of at least one element the other does not. Additionally, the court found that Dellar’s ineffective assistance claim was not record-based and not suitable for review on direct appeal. Finally, the court concluded that the District Court did consider Dellar’s ability to pay the $50 victim surcharge. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decisions. View "State v. Dellar" on Justia Law

An eighteen-year-old defendant attended a post-high school graduation event at the Sweet Grass County fairgrounds, where alcohol and drug use were prohibited. A chaperone reported to the Sweet Grass County Sheriff’s Office that the defendant appeared intoxicated. Deputy Whaley arrived later, conducted alcohol tests on attendees, and observed the defendant and another individual walking towards a vehicle. The deputy, familiar with the defendant’s prior offenses and court-ordered conditions, approached and requested consent to search the vehicle, which the defendant refused. Using a flashlight, the deputy saw a marijuana smoking device in plain view inside the vehicle. The vehicle was seized, and a search warrant was obtained, leading to the discovery of marijuana, paraphernalia, and alcoholic beverages. The defendant was charged with two counts of underage possession of an intoxicating substance (UPIS), one for alcohol and one for marijuana.The defendant pled guilty in justice court and was sentenced for UPIS (3rd and 4th offenses), with sentences running concurrently. He appealed to the District Court, filing motions to suppress evidence for lack of particularized suspicion and to dismiss one count for double jeopardy. The District Court denied both motions, ruling that the plain view doctrine justified the seizure of the vehicle and that the two charges did not violate the multiple conviction statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that Deputy Whaley’s initial approach did not constitute a seizure requiring particularized suspicion and that the use of a flashlight to view the marijuana device did not violate the plain view doctrine. The court also held that the two charges for possession of different intoxicating substances did not violate the multiple conviction statute. The court affirmed the District Court’s rulings. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law