Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

James Houston Parker was convicted in May 2023 by a jury in the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, for two counts of felony tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. The charges stemmed from an incident on June 9, 2022, where officers responded to a call about an assaulted woman, P.H., who had severe facial injuries. P.H. had been at Parker's residence earlier that evening. Officers found blood and bleach at Parker's residence, and Parker had blood and bleach on his shoes. Parker was uncooperative during evidence collection, and his fingerprint was found on a bleach bottle in a nearby dumpster.The District Court instructed the jury to convict Parker based on him acting "knowingly" rather than "purposely," which Parker did not object to at trial. The jury acquitted Parker of aggravated assault but convicted him on the tampering charges. Parker was sentenced to six years in the Department of Corrections.Parker appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, arguing that the District Court committed plain error by using the incorrect mental state in the jury instructions, that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the instruction, and that the prosecutor's actions constituted misconduct. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that although the instruction was erroneous, the overwhelming evidence showed Parker acted with purpose. The court held that the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice or undermine the trial's fairness.The Supreme Court also found that Parker's ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed because there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome even if the objection had been made. Lastly, the court determined that the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct that deprived Parker of a fair trial. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed Parker's conviction. View "State v. Parker" on Justia Law

Ryan Gabriel appealed an Eleventh Judicial District Court order affirming the Justice Court’s order of protection in favor of Kai Groenke, an attorney for Gabriel’s former partner. Gabriel had sent a series of threatening and harassing emails to Groenke, including threats of professional disciplinary action, accusations of mental illness, and threats of violence. Groenke obtained a temporary order of protection, which Gabriel violated by continuing to send harassing communications.The Justice Court held a hearing where Groenke, her father Fritz, and her husband testified about Gabriel’s threatening behavior and its impact on Groenke’s mental health and safety. Gabriel argued that his communications were provoked by Groenke and that he was the victim of harassment. The Justice Court found Gabriel’s behavior to be consistent with stalking and granted a ten-year order of protection.Gabriel appealed to the District Court, which reviewed the case and affirmed the Justice Court’s decision. Gabriel then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and upheld the lower courts' decisions. The court found that Gabriel’s conduct met the statutory definition of stalking, causing substantial emotional distress and fear for safety. The court rejected Gabriel’s arguments about the relevance of the Oregon trial court’s stay and his claims of provocation. The court also declined to address Gabriel’s First Amendment argument, as it was raised for the first time in his reply brief. The Supreme Court affirmed the Justice Court’s order of protection. View "Groenke v. Gabriel" on Justia Law

Jonathan Partain left his cell phone in his 15-year-old daughter's room and remotely triggered it to record her while she was changing clothes. His daughter discovered the recording, showed it to her mother, deleted it, and confronted Partain, who admitted to his actions. The State charged Partain with Sexual Abuse of Children and Surreptitious Visual Observation or Recordation in a Residence. Partain pleaded guilty to Sexual Abuse of Children in exchange for the dismissal of the second charge and an amendment to the first charge to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence.The Fourth Judicial District Court accepted Partain's guilty plea and dismissed the second charge without prejudice. However, at sentencing, the court dismissed the Sexual Abuse of Children charge sua sponte, reinstated the previously dismissed charge of Surreptitious Visual Observation or Recordation, and found Partain guilty of that charge. The court imposed a two-year deferred sentence for the misdemeanor charge. The State appealed, arguing that the court had no authority to dismiss the guilty plea and reinstate the dismissed charge.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and held that the District Court had no statutory authority to dismiss the felony charge after accepting Partain's guilty plea and to amend or reinstate the dismissed misdemeanor charge. The court found that the District Court's actions violated the separation of powers by usurping the role of the prosecutor in charging decisions. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing on the Sexual Abuse of Children conviction. View "State v. Partain" on Justia Law

In 1982, William Clark was convicted of eight counts of sexual intercourse without consent and was designated a dangerous offender, receiving a 30-year prison sentence for each count, to run concurrently. After being paroled, Clark sought relief from the sex offender registration requirement in 2005, which was denied by the district court. The court found that Clark was not eligible for relief under the 2005 Sexual and Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA) because the victim was compelled to submit by force. This decision was affirmed on appeal.Clark again petitioned for relief in 2024, citing the Montana Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hinman, which held that the 2007 SVORA amendments were punitive and could not be applied retroactively. The State opposed, arguing that Clark remained subject to the 2005 SVORA requirements, which mandated lifetime registration. The Ninth Judicial District Court denied Clark's petition, maintaining that he must continue to register for life under the 2005 SVORA.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the lower court's decision. The Court held that the 2005 SVORA, which was determined to be a civil regulatory scheme and not punitive, could be applied retroactively. Since Clark's offenses occurred before the 2007 amendments, he remained subject to the 2005 SVORA, which required lifetime registration due to the nature of his offense involving force. The Court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that there was no violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws. View "Clark v. State" on Justia Law

Livorio Loera was charged with felony vehicular homicide while under the influence after a two-vehicle accident on Interstate 90 resulted in the death of Jerome Socheath. Loera drove the wrong way on the highway and collided with an SUV, causing it to roll and eject Socheath, who died three days later. Loera was found intoxicated and with a blood alcohol content of .124 several hours after the crash. Evidence found in Loera's car included open and unopened alcohol containers and self-help books on addiction.The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, excluded evidence regarding Socheath's seat belt use, deeming it irrelevant to Loera's conduct. The court also admitted evidence of unopened alcohol and self-help books found in Loera's trunk, considering it relevant to Loera's negligence. Loera appealed these decisions, arguing that the seat belt evidence was necessary for his causation defense and that the trunk evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the seat belt evidence, as it was irrelevant to determining Loera's conduct and causation. The court also found that the transaction rule did not apply to the seat belt evidence. However, the Supreme Court determined that the District Court erred in admitting the trunk evidence, as it was irrelevant to Loera's negligence and intoxication. Despite this error, the court concluded it was harmless due to the overwhelming admissible evidence proving Loera's guilt. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed Loera's conviction. View "State v. Loera" on Justia Law

Leslie Dean Ernst pleaded guilty to five felony counts of Privacy in Communications in violation of Montana law. He later sought to withdraw his guilty pleas and reduce two of the felony convictions to misdemeanors, which the District Court denied. Ernst appealed the decision.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court initially sentenced Ernst to 25 years in prison with a 15-year parole restriction. Ernst appealed, and the case was remanded for resentencing due to a missing transcript. Before resentencing, Ernst moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, arguing that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional based on a prior court decision. The District Court denied his motion, finding that Ernst had not shown his prior convictions were unconstitutional. Ernst was resentenced to the same 25-year term with a 15-year parole restriction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Ernst was charged, convicted, and sentenced under the constitutional portion of the Privacy in Communications statute. The court found that the charging documents, plea agreement, and sentencing did not rely on the unconstitutional prima facie provision. The court also determined that Ernst's guilty plea colloquy was sufficient to establish his intent to harass, annoy, or offend his victims, as required by the statute.Additionally, the court held that Ernst failed to provide direct evidence that his prior convictions were unconstitutional. The presumption of regularity attached to his prior convictions, and Ernst did not meet his burden to show they were invalid. Consequently, the court affirmed the District Court's denial of Ernst's motions and upheld his sentence. View "State v. Ernst" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was involved in an incident where he confronted two men spraying herbicide in a park, attempted to disable their equipment with a knife, and resisted arrest when police arrived. He was charged with multiple misdemeanors, including obstructing, resisting arrest, criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The defendant pleaded not guilty and was released on the condition that he appear at all scheduled hearings.The Municipal Court warned the defendant that failure to appear at the final pretrial hearing would result in a waiver of his right to a jury trial. The defendant failed to appear at the final pretrial hearing, and the court subsequently waived his jury trial and set the matter for a bench trial. The defendant did not object to this waiver or to proceeding with a bench trial. He was found guilty of all charges except for possession of drug paraphernalia, which was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. The defendant was sentenced to consecutive suspended sentences for the remaining charges.The defendant appealed to the Fourth Judicial District Court, arguing that the Municipal Court erred in waiving his jury trial right. The District Court affirmed the Municipal Court's decision, concluding that the defendant had been adequately informed of the consequences of failing to appear and had effectively waived his right to a jury trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and held that the Municipal Court did not commit plain error in conducting a bench trial. The court found that the defendant had been properly notified of the waiver consequences and had not objected to the waiver or the bench trial. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the defendant's waiver of his jury trial right was knowing and voluntary. View "City of Missoula v. Charlie" on Justia Law

In October 2019, Khrysta Turk reported to the Kalispell Police Department that her stepson, L.S., then 13 years old, had inappropriately touched her four-year-old daughter, E.T. L.S. admitted to the inappropriate touching during a police interview. Following the report, L.S.'s mother placed him in various residential treatment facilities for a total of 728 days. The investigation concluded in December 2019, and the matter was referred to the Eleventh Judicial District Court Office of Youth Services in January 2020. The Youth Court decided to monitor L.S.'s treatment informally without initiating formal proceedings.The State filed a formal petition on January 3, 2022, alleging that L.S. committed acts consistent with felony sexual assault. L.S. was appointed counsel, and the District Court set a trial date. L.S. moved for a continuance due to a discovery violation by the State, which delayed the trial. L.S. also filed motions to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial and for the discovery violation. The District Court denied both motions, noting that the case was atypical due to L.S.'s mother's proactive placement in treatment facilities. The trial was rescheduled multiple times, and L.S. eventually admitted to the allegations while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motions.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and conducted a speedy trial analysis. The Court determined that the delay of 329 days from the filing of the petition to L.S.'s admission was not extraordinary given the serious nature of the allegations. The Court found that the delays were either institutional or due to L.S.'s request for a continuance. L.S. consistently asserted his right to a speedy trial but failed to demonstrate that the delay prejudiced his defense. The Court concluded that no speedy trial violation occurred and affirmed the District Court's denial of L.S.'s motion to dismiss. View "In re L.S." on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Justin Dean Kalina, was convicted by a jury of Violation of a Protective Order – Second Offense, Assault with a Weapon, and Tampering with Witnesses and Informants. The events leading to these charges occurred in late 2019 and October 2020, involving Kalina's former girlfriend, Kim Field, and her friend Stacy Butts. Kalina violated a protective order by approaching Field at a bar and later assaulted Stacy with a weapon after a confrontation at Stacy's house. Kalina also tampered with a witness by instructing his friend Jessica Foote to prepare a statement matching his version of events.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Yellowstone County presided over the trial. Kalina filed several post-trial motions, including motions to dismiss the Assault with a Weapon charge, suppress evidence, and for a new trial, all of which were denied by the District Court. Kalina also moved to enforce a pretrial plea offer, which the District Court rejected, and argued that the court imposed a "trial tax" by sentencing him more harshly than the plea offer. Additionally, Kalina claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence existed to sustain Kalina's conviction for Assault with a Weapon, as a rational juror could have found that Kalina's use of force was not justified. The court also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct the jury on the defense of Use of Force in Defense of an Occupied Structure, as Kalina's car did not meet the definition of an occupied structure. The court upheld the admission of Kalina's past assault convictions, ruling that Kalina had "opened the door" to this evidence by testifying about his lack of prior violent encounters.The court further held that the District Court did not err in denying Kalina's requests for evidentiary hearings on his motions to dismiss, suppress evidence, and for a new trial. The court found that Kalina's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance and that the District Court did not impose a "trial tax" in sentencing. Finally, the court affirmed the District Court's denial of Kalina's second motion for a new trial, finding substantial compliance with jury selection statutes. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the District Court's judgment. View "State v. Kalina" on Justia Law

In July 2020, Sanders County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a shooting incident involving Michel Scott Dulaney and his neighbor, Edgar Torrey. Torrey was shot during an altercation, and Dulaney was arrested after initially denying involvement but later claiming self-defense. Dulaney was charged with three counts of attempted deliberate homicide, and he asserted a justifiable use of force defense.The Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders County, presided over the case. The court excluded the testimony of Dulaney’s expert witness, Gary Marbut, who was to testify about self-defense and the mechanics of the shooting. The court also ruled that Dulaney had to testify and admit to acting purposely and knowingly to assert his justification defense. Dulaney was found guilty on all counts by a jury.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court did not err in requiring Dulaney to provide evidence that he acted purposely and knowingly to assert his justifiable use of force defense. The court clarified that while Dulaney had to concede purposeful and knowing conduct, he did not have to admit to intending to commit deliberate homicide. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excluding Marbut’s testimony, as the jury could understand the circumstances without expert explanation. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of Dulaney’s post-verdict motion for a new trial or judgment of acquittal, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. View "State v. M. Dulaney" on Justia Law