Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgments of the district court convicting Defendant and denying his post-judgment motion for resentencing or rescission, holding that the district court unlawfully imposed sex offender registration on Defendant under Mont. Code Ann. 46-23-512.Defendant entered a guilty plea and a no contest plea on two counts of felony criminal endangerment. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in concluding that the State did not breach the parties' plea agreement at sentencing. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the State did not undermine or breach the plea agreement; but (2) the district court erred under section 46-23-512 in imposing sex offender registration. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual intercourse without consent, holding that there was no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings.Specifically at issue was whether the district court erred in excluding defense evidence on relevancy grounds or committed reversible error by admitting certain hearsay statements into evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) erred in admitting hearsay evidence, but the error was harmless and not subject to reversal on appeal; and (2) did not err in excluding irrelevant defense testimony. View "State v. Ripple" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court after a jury trial adjudging Defendant guilty of incest in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-507(1), holding that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of other acts.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his pre-trial motion in limine to exclude evidence of other acts committed between Defendant and the victim in Wyoming on the grounds that the evidence showed motive, opportunity and Defendant's pattern of behavior and the absence of mistake or accident. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion in limine to exclude the evidence on the grounds that it relevant and admissible to prove motive, plan, and preparation under Mont. R. Evid. 404(b); and (2) the danger of unfair prejudice was cured by the district court's numerous and repeated limiting instructions. View "State v. Stryker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's untimely post-conviction relief (PCR) petition and his motion for a new trial, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant failed to present any evidence that would justify an exception to the time bar and denying his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.In June 2016, Appellant was convicted of the felony aggravated assault of his son and was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison. In June 2020, Appellant filed a petition for a new trial and his PCR petition. The district court denied relief, holding (1) Appellant fell short of providing an equitable reason to depart from the determination that the PCR petition was time barred; and (2) Appellant did not offer newly-discovered evidence justifying granting his motion for new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly concluded that Appellant's PCR petition did not allege the existence of any newly-discovered evidence that would allow an exception to the one-year limitation; and (2) correctly denied Appellant's petition for a new trial based upon the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. View "Oliphant v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's sentence for driving under the influence (DUI), holding that the district court erred by sentencing Defendant to the Montana State Prison (MSP) and by requiring him to pay a $100 statutory surcharge.Defendant was charged with felony DUI for a sixth offense. After a trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of DUI. The district court sentenced Defendant to serve a five-year term at the MSP and ordered him to pay a $100 surcharge pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-236(1). The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err by determining that permitting a certain witness to appear by video was supported by appropriate public policy considerations; and (2) as conceded by the statute, Defendant should have been sentenced to the Department of Corrections up to a maximum of five years and not to MSP, and the district court should have assessed Defendant a surcharge of $50. View "State v. Walsh" on Justia Law