Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the municipal court sentencing Appellant for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater (DUI per se), first offense, holding that the municipal court lawfully ordered Appellant to satisfy a $600 fine using his COVID-19 stimulus payment but erred in concluding that it did not have discretion to suspend the fine or to enforce the fine through an alternative method of payment.Appellant pleaded guilty to an amended misdemeanor charge of first-offense DUI per se and agreed to the minimum $600 fine with the understanding that he would ask the court to consider his ability to pay the fine. The municipal court sentenced Appellant to ten days of incarceration and a $600 fine. Appellant appealed, arguing that the municipal court erred in imposing the fine despite his inability to pay. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the municipal court abused its discretion by not recognizing that it possessed the discretion to order Appellant to satisfy the mandatory fine via alternative methods to a dollar-for-dollar repayment plan ordered by the municipal court. View "City of Whitefish v. Curran" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the State's felony charge against him for failure to register as a sexual offender, holding that the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA), as amended since 2007, was punitive in nature.Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in 1994 and served and discharged his sentence. At the time, SVORA, known then as Montana's Sexual offender Registration Act, required Defendant to maintain registration for ten years. When the legislature amended SVORA, it included more onerous steps and applied them retroactively to previously convicted registrants such as Defendant. In 2019, Defendant was charged with failure to register. Defendant appealed, arguing that the amended SVORA requirements rendered the statute an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment for his earlier crime. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) SVORA as amended is punitive in nature; and (2) therefore, the requirements brought on by those amendments could not retroactively be applied to defendants whose convictions predate the amendments. View "State v. Hinman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two homicides and two attempts to solicit a third homicide, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of deliberate homicide and two counts of solicitation to commit deliberate homicide and sentenced to serve four concurrent sentences of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State's use of jailhouse informants did not violate Defendant's right to counsel; (2) the jury was fully and fairly instructed as to the applicable law; (3) any error on the part of the trial court in limiting defense counsel's ability to comment on a missing prosecution witness during closing argument; and (4) this Court will not exercise plain error review to consider whether Defendant's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and other trial errors deprived him of a fair trial. View "State v. Hardy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of assault with a weapon and his commitment to the Department of Public Health and Human Service (DPHHS) for the duration of his twenty-year sentence with ten years suspended, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, and the parties agreed to recommend that Defendant be committed to the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) for the duration of his sentence. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to twenty years in DPHHS's custody with ten years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court unjustly resumed his criminal proceedings due to the lengthy period between his arrest and the date he regained fitness to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss because resuming Defendant's criminal proceedings was not unjust. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court requiring Broadwater County to provide to Helena Independent Record (IR) or other interested persons redacted videographer and documentation records pertaining to Jason Ellsworth's May 2021 stop by and encounter with a Montana Highway Patrol officer, holding that there was no error.Ellsworth pleaded guilty to an obstructing a peace officer. Thereafter, a reporter with the IR requested from Broadwater County a copy of Ellsworth's investigative file. Petitioner, a county attorney, determined that the file contained confidential criminal justice information and filed a petition seeking a declaratory ruling to clarify and enforce the rights of recovery to redacted confidential criminal justice information (CCJI) contained in the file. Petitioner also filed a separate motion for leave to deposit the investigative file under seal. The district court (1) concluded that Ellsworth's criminal case had been completed and that the declaratory action was ripe for decision; and (2) held that Ellsworth's privacy rights outweighed the public's right to know regarding certain information irrelevant to the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Ellsworth was given a proper opportunity to participate, and his due process right was not infringed regarding the release of the CCJI. View "Broadwater Co. v. Release of Confidential Criminal Justice Information" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment order denying Plaintiff's wrongful discharge from employment claim, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.Plaintiff filed a complaint for wrongful termination well over more than one year after her employment ended. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed timely to file her complaint under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act. The district court granted the motion, finding that Plaintiff's discharge was for "good cause" and that Plaintiff did not establish that the reasons for her discharge were false, pretextual, or retaliatory. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting Defendant summary judgment based on the undisputed facts establishing good cause for Plaintiff's termination and Plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient evidence establishing that the reasons for her termination were retaliatory. View "Shepherd v. State Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of aggravated burglary and obstructing a police officer and sentencing him to forty years for aggravated burglary and six months for obstructing a peace officer, holding that the case must be remanded for resentencing.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated; (2) Defendant's claim of instructional error not warrant plain error review because he failed to show how he was prejudiced; (3) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim must fail because Defendant he to show any prejudice; and (4) Defendant was entitled to resentencing because the district court relied on incorrect information when it imposed the sentence. View "State v. Kirn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court to deny Petitioner's petition to reinstate his driver's license, holding that the district court did not err in denying the petition because Petitioner did not meet his burden to prove that the suspension of his driver's license was improper.On appeal, Petitioner argued that his request to speak to an attorney prior to taking a preliminary breath test and a post-arrest blood test should not have been taken as an implied refusal to submit to either test and, therefore, he did not refuse to take the tests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record reflected that Petitioner explicitly refused to take the tests; and (2) the district court correctly denied Petitioner's petition. View "Turner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ruling that Mont. Code Ann. 50-20-109(1)(a), which restricts providers of abortion care to physicians and physician assistants (PAs), violates a woman's fundamental right of privacy, guaranteed by the Montana Constitution, to seek abortion care from a qualified health care provider of her choosing, holding that there was no error.In reaching its decision, the district court concluded that the State failed to "clearly and convincingly demonstrate a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk which justifies interfering with a patient's fundamental right[....]to choose the health care provider who performs the [abortion] procedure[.]" The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there is no medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk for the State to restrict the availability of abortion care by preventing Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) from performing abortions; and (2) therefore, Montanans have the right to seek abortion care from certified APRNs. View "Weems v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of criminal endangerment, driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and partner or family member assault, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to suppress.At issue was the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress for lack of particularized suspicion, motion to suppress breath test, and motion to suppress statements. Specifically, Defendant argued that there were insufficient articulable facts to conduct an investigatory stop, there were sufficient articulable facts to conduct a DUI investigation, and the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant's statements to law enforcement were voluntary. View "State v. Schlichenmayer" on Justia Law