Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Defendant's motion to allow withdrawal of his guilty plea and dismiss the underlying matter on double jeopardy grounds, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss and the criminal endangerment and criminal mischief charges in Jefferson County.Jefferson County charged Defendant with criminal endangerment, fleeing from or eluding a peace officer, and criminal mischief. The next month, Gallatin County charged with him criminal endangerment and fleeing from or eluding a peace officer. Defendant pled guilty to both charges. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss the Jefferson County charges, arguing that they violated constitutional double jeopardy protections. The district court allowed the motion as to the fleeing from or eluding a peace officer charge and otherwise denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea as to the criminal endangerment and criminal mischief charges. View "State v. Dunne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's suspended sentence and imposing a sentence with a termination date beyond the original sentence, holding that the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant to a term no greater than his original sentence and in denying credit for elapsed time.Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of felony indecent exposure. The State later filed a petition to revoke Defendant's sentence. The district court imposed a suspended sentence with a termination date beyond the original sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not violate either Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203(7)(a)(iii) or Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203(7)(b) in sentencing Defendant to a term no greater than his original sentence and in denying credit for elapsed time. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to prevent silent security camera footage from being made available to the jury during deliberations and subsequent judgment of guilty to the charge of deliberate homicide, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of deliberate homicide and sentenced to a 100-year term of imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by allowing silent video footage from the neighbor's security camera to go into the jury room during deliberations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where the camera footage at issue was neither testimonial in nature nor cared any substantial risk of undue emphasis, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to provide the jury with unrestricted access to this footage during deliberations. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of deliberate homicide and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, holding that Defendant's assignments of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the State's 391-day delay in bringing his case to trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial under both the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where the delay was primarily institutional under the conditions presented at the time by the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and where Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice, Defendant failed to establish that he was denied his right to a speedy trial; and (2) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to strike the jury panel. View "State v. Hesse" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court sentencing Defendant to ten years in Montana State Prison, with four years suspended, in connection with his conviction for aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, holding that there was no basis for reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in applying the rape shield statute to exclude a portion of the victim's texts regarding her sexual conduct; (2) the instructions provided by the district court fully and fairly instructed the jury regarding the mental state applicable to charges of sexual intercourse without consent; and (3) the district court properly instructed the jury by delivering a general unanimity instruction. View "State v. Ragner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed upon revocation, holding that the district court did not err in calculating Defendant's sentence pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203, the relevant statute governing the imposition of sentence upon revocation.Defendant pled guilty to three counts and received a sentence imposing a term of incarceration followed by period of probation. Defendant was arrested on probation violations before discharging his suspended sentence, and his suspended sentence was revoked. Upon resentencing, the court granted Defendant a total credit of 553 days. Defendant appealed his sentence imposed upon revocation, arguing that the 553 days should be credited towards each of the counts for which he was convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was only entitled to credit for elapsed time and presentence incarceration against the aggregate of the consecutive sentences imposed by the district court. View "State v. Souther" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and sentence for a DUI fourth offense, holding that Defendant was entitled to the expungement provision in effect at the time he committed an underlying offense.The State charged Defendant with a DUI third offense - a misdemeanor - but then amended the charge to DUI fourth offense - a felony - based on Defendant's three prior Texas DUI convictions. Defendant filed a motion to amend the felony back to a misdemeanor, arguing that his first conviction should be expunged. The district court denied the motion, after which Defendant pleaded guilty to DUI fourth offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred when it considered Defendant's first DUI conviction in 1990 when sentencing for his DUI conviction in 2015 because his 1990 DUI conviction should have been expunged. View "State v. Peralta" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court revoking Defendant's suspended sentence, committing him to the custody of the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) for a three-year term, and giving him credit for elapsed time and previously-served jail time, holding that the district court issued an illegal sentence.The order of the district court at issue revoked Defendant's suspended sentence, committed him to the custody of the DOC for three years, and gave him credit for 105 days of elapsed time and 181 days of previously-served jail time. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court issued an illegal sentence when it failed to credit for time served on sentences that were ordered to run concurrent to his revocation sentence. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to give Defendant credit for an additional 604 days of time served, holding that the district court imposed an illegal sentence when it failed to give Defendant credit for certain time served. View "State v. Kortan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of incest, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions based on any of his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant had not demonstrated that the victim's allegations against other male relatives were false and thus inadmissible under the Rape Shield statute; (2) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was inappropriate for review on direct appeal; and (3) this Court declines to exercise plain error review to consider whether Defendant received a fundamentally fair trial when the district court did not sua sponte exclude testimony of false reporting statistics. View "State v. McCaulou" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of sexual abuse of children, holding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress, and the error was not harmless.On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence discovered by his parole officer when the officer conducted a warrantless search of Defendant's phone. Defendant argued that the search was unreasonable because it exceeded the scope of his consent and because his parole officer lacked a valid exception to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that the probation officer's warrantless search of Defendant's digital photo gallery was not a valid probation search under the Montana Constitution, and the contraband discovered as a consequence of the unlawful search should have been suppressed under the exclusionary rule. View "State v. Mefford" on Justia Law