Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Laura Marie Obert, a former Broadwater County Commissioner, was investigated by the Montana Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) in 2015 for allegedly receiving unlawful overtime pay and potential ethics violations. In 2016, Obert entered a deferred prosecution agreement with the Assistant Attorney General, agreeing to repay the excess wages and abstain from voting on matters where she had a conflict of interest. In 2019, based on new allegations of violating the agreement, Obert was charged with felony theft and misdemeanor official misconduct. The district court dismissed these charges in 2021, finding Obert had complied with the agreement and there was insufficient evidence for the misconduct charge.Obert then sued the State of Montana and Broadwater County Attorney Cory Swanson, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, due process violations, and malicious prosecution. The First Judicial District Court dismissed her claims, leading to this appeal.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and made several determinations. It reversed the lower court's dismissal of Obert's breach of contract and good faith and fair dealing claims, holding that these claims were not time-barred and did not accrue until the criminal charges were dismissed. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Obert's bad faith claim, finding no special relationship existed between Obert and the State that would support such a claim. The court also upheld the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim, ruling that Swanson was protected by prosecutorial immunity as he acted within his statutory duties. Lastly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the due process claim, concluding that Obert's procedural due process rights were not violated as the State followed proper procedures in charging her and the district court provided an appropriate forum to address the alleged breach of the agreement. View "Obert v State" on Justia Law

In this case, Billy Lee Henderson appealed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his 2019 conviction for Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (SIWC). The conviction stemmed from a series of assaults on Jane Doe over five days in April 2018. Henderson was found guilty of multiple related offenses, including witness tampering and protective order violations. He was sentenced to 75 years in prison, with 25 years suspended.Henderson's petition for postconviction relief was based on newly discovered evidence, specifically Doe's recantation of her trial testimony. Doe had initially testified that Henderson forced her to have non-consensual sex, but later, in recorded conversations and an interview, she claimed the intercourse was consensual and that she had been pressured by authorities to testify otherwise. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, denied the petition, finding Doe's recantations inconsistent and lacking credibility, especially given Henderson's history of witness tampering.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the District Court applied the correct standards in assessing the newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the District Court did not err in its evidentiary assessment. The court emphasized that Doe's recantations were not sufficiently credible or weighty to warrant a new trial, especially in light of her inconsistent statements and the context of Henderson's attempts to influence her testimony. The Supreme Court concluded that the District Court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous. View "Henderson v. State" on Justia Law

Tanya Twoteeth was convicted by a jury in the First Judicial District Court of Montana for Tampering with Witnesses and Informants. The case arose from an investigation into car thefts, where Tanya's daughter, Desirae, was a suspect. Desirae's aunt, Roberta, initially reported seeing Desirae in a stolen vehicle. Before Desirae's trial, she made calls to Tanya, discussing concerns about Roberta's potential testimony. Tanya assured Desirae that she would speak to Roberta. Subsequently, Roberta changed her statement, claiming she did not see anyone in the car.The District Court admitted Roberta's initial statement to police as non-hearsay, over Tanya's objection. Tanya was charged with tampering based on the recorded calls and Roberta's changed testimony. Tanya moved to dismiss the case for insufficient evidence, but the District Court denied the motion, finding enough evidence for the jury to decide.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the District Court did not err in admitting Roberta's statement as non-hearsay, as it was used to show the trajectory of the investigation and not for the truth of the matter asserted. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Tanya's conviction. The recorded calls and the change in Roberta's testimony provided a reasonable basis for the jury to infer that Tanya had influenced Roberta. The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Twoteeth" on Justia Law

Wes Lee Whitaker was convicted by a jury of sexual intercourse without consent (SIWC), incest, and sexual assault. The case involved allegations that Whitaker sexually abused his stepdaughter, L.M., who was a young child at the time. The abuse was reported by L.M.'s mother, Jessica, after she observed suspicious behavior and L.M. disclosed inappropriate touching by Whitaker. L.M. provided detailed accounts of the abuse during a forensic interview and a medical examination, although she could not recall many details during the trial.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, presided over the trial. Whitaker raised several issues on appeal, including the admission of testimony via video from a federal prisoner, the admission of L.M.'s prior statements, and a claim of double jeopardy regarding his convictions for SIWC and sexual assault. The District Court allowed the video testimony due to COVID-19 concerns and admitted L.M.'s prior statements as inconsistent with her trial testimony.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court did not violate Whitaker's confrontation rights by allowing the video testimony, as the decision was justified by the pandemic and the witness's incarceration status. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting L.M.'s prior statements, as her inability to recall details at trial constituted a material inconsistency. However, the court agreed with Whitaker and the State that his convictions for SIWC and sexual assault violated double jeopardy, as they were based on the same act. Consequently, the court reversed the sexual assault conviction and remanded for entry of an amended judgment, while affirming the other convictions. View "State v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jose Frank Patina, was found guilty of five counts of Assault with a Weapon after a three-day jury trial. During the trial, Patina raised concerns about not receiving full discovery and issues with his counsel's performance, including the timing and substance of certain motions and his ability to view evidence. He requested a substitution of counsel, citing a lack of communication and trust in his attorney.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Yellowstone County conducted an initial inquiry into Patina's complaints. The court confirmed that Patina had been provided with all necessary discovery and that his counsel had acted appropriately regarding the motions and evidence. Despite Patina's general feelings of discomfort and unsupported concerns, the court found his complaints to be vague and unsubstantiated. The court denied his request for substitute counsel, stating that his grievances did not demonstrate a complete breakdown in communication that would warrant such a substitution.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the District Court had conducted an adequate initial inquiry into Patina's complaints and correctly determined that his grievances were not "seemingly substantial." The court emphasized that a defendant's right to substitute counsel arises only when there is a complete breakdown in communication that frustrates the purpose of effective assistance. Patina's complaints were found to be either misunderstandings or matters of trial strategy, which do not justify the substitution of counsel. The conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Patina" on Justia Law

The defendant, Michael Lee Marfuta, Jr., lived in a trailer park in Livingston, Montana, and worked there under an informal agreement. After the park was sold to a nonprofit corporation, Marfuta faced new employment requirements and was eventually served with an eviction notice for failing to pay rent. Marfuta responded with threatening emails, indicating he would resist eviction violently. On February 2, 2021, law enforcement attempted to serve an eviction notice, leading to a standoff where Marfuta fired multiple shots at officers. He was eventually arrested after a prolonged confrontation.The Sixth Judicial District Court of Park County initially charged Marfuta with several offenses, including Attempted Deliberate Homicide, but did not include a weapon enhancement. The State later amended the charges to include the weapon enhancement under § 46-18-221, MCA. Marfuta moved to dismiss the weapon enhancement, arguing the State did not properly seek pre-filing approval. The District Court denied the motion, stating it had granted leave to file the Amended Information, which included the weapon enhancement. The jury found Marfuta guilty of Attempted Deliberate Homicide and Assault on a Peace Officer, and the court sentenced him to 82 years in prison, including the weapon enhancement.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The Court held that the District Court properly denied Marfuta's motion to dismiss the weapon enhancement, as the State had provided sufficient probable cause and notice. The Court also found that the jury instructions on the mental state for Attempted Deliberate Homicide were adequate when considered as a whole. Additionally, the Court rejected Marfuta's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that his counsel's performance did not fall below the standard required by the Sixth Amendment. View "State v. Marfuta" on Justia Law

Johnathan Bertsch was charged with two counts of deliberate homicide and two counts of attempted deliberate homicide after shooting at a vehicle, killing one person and injuring two others, and subsequently shooting a highway patrol officer. He pleaded guilty to one count of deliberate homicide and three counts of attempted deliberate homicide. The State requested $34,728.14 in restitution based on payments made to the victims by Montana’s Crime Victim Compensation Program. Bertsch, who relied on Social Security payments and had not maintained employment, objected to the restitution due to his indigent status.The Fourth Judicial District Court sentenced Bertsch to four consecutive life terms without parole and imposed the requested restitution amount plus a 10% administrative fee. The court reasoned that any funds Bertsch earned through prison work should go towards restitution. Bertsch appealed the restitution order, arguing that it should be waived as unjust given his financial inability to pay.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the restitution statutes require courts to determine restitution amounts without considering an offender’s ability to pay. Bertsch did not adequately request a waiver or present sufficient evidence to show that restitution was unjust under § 46-18-246, MCA. The court found that a general objection based on indigence did not meet the burden of proof required to waive restitution. The court affirmed the District Court’s order, noting that Bertsch could petition for a waiver or adjustment of restitution if his circumstances changed. View "State v. Bertsch" on Justia Law

On December 12, 2022, Joseph Benton Flynn was convicted of misdemeanor Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in Helena Municipal Court after pleading no contest. Prior to his plea, Flynn's motions to suppress evidence due to lack of particularized suspicion for the initial stop and to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial were denied. Flynn appealed these denials to the First Judicial District Court, which affirmed the Municipal Court's decisions.Flynn's appeal to the Montana Supreme Court raised two issues: whether there was particularized suspicion to stop him for speeding and whether his right to a speedy trial was violated. The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo.The court found that Officer Jessica Cornell had particularized suspicion to stop Flynn based on her training, experience, and the RADAR sign indicating Flynn was speeding. The court also held that the RADAR sign did not constitute an automated enforcement system prohibited by Montana law. Therefore, the initial stop and subsequent DUI investigation were justified, and the motion to suppress was correctly denied.Regarding the speedy trial claim, the court applied the four-factor balancing test from State v. Ariegwe. The total delay was 742 days, with 480 days attributed to Flynn due to his motions for continuances and waivers of his right to a speedy trial. The court found Flynn's responses to the delays did not demonstrate a desire for a speedy trial, and he failed to show prejudice from the delay. Consequently, the court concluded that Flynn's right to a speedy trial was not violated.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision, upholding Flynn's conviction. View "State v. Flynn" on Justia Law

Benedict Dale Fredericks was involved in an altercation in the parking lot of the Bourbon Street Hotel in Billings, Montana, on January 25, 2022. Hotel clerk Marion Ackerman confronted Fredericks, suspecting him of trying to enter a car that did not belong to him. After a verbal exchange, Fredericks shoved Marion, who shoved him back. During the ensuing scuffle, Fredericks stabbed Marion three times. Marion's brother, Trevor, restrained Fredericks until law enforcement arrived. Fredericks was charged with Felony Assault with a Weapon and claimed he acted in self-defense.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, presided over the case. During the trial, the defense requested a jury instruction on justifiable use of force, which the court denied, stating there was insufficient evidence to support this defense. The jury subsequently convicted Fredericks of Felony Assault with a Weapon, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years suspended.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The main issue on appeal was whether the District Court abused its discretion by not instructing the jury on justifiable use of force. The Supreme Court found that although the District Court erred in its reasoning for denying the instruction, the refusal was ultimately correct. The evidence showed that Fredericks initiated the physical altercation and had opportunities to escape but chose to escalate the situation by using a knife. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment, concluding that the justifiable use of force instruction was not warranted based on the evidence presented. View "State v. Fredericks" on Justia Law

Christian Michael Smith was involved in a motorcycle accident on September 2, 2023, in Cascade County, Montana. Montana State Trooper Perry Woodland responded to the scene and found Smith injured and already being attended to by paramedics. Smith admitted to drinking the previous evening but could not perform a field sobriety test due to his injuries. Woodland followed Smith to the hospital, where Smith initially consented to a blood test but later refused after consulting with his mother. Consequently, Smith's driver's license was suspended under Montana's implied consent statute.Smith petitioned the Eighth Judicial District Court to reinstate his license, arguing that Trooper Woodland lacked particularized suspicion to request the blood test and that he did not refuse the test. The State contended that Woodland had probable cause to believe Smith was involved in an accident resulting in serious bodily injury, justifying the request for a blood test. The District Court found that while Woodland did not have particularized suspicion of DUI, he had probable cause to believe the accident resulted in serious bodily injury, thus upholding the request for the blood test. The court also found that Smith refused the test when he said, "I don’t want that," after speaking with his mother.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that Woodland had probable cause to believe Smith's injuries were serious, as defined by Montana law, and that Smith's statement constituted a refusal to submit to the blood test. The Court also declined to consider Smith's argument that he was incapable of refusing the test due to pain medication, as this argument was raised for the first time on appeal. The suspension of Smith's driver's license was upheld. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law