Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Craig Thomas Headdress appealed from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County’s order revoking his suspended sentence and imposing a three-year Department of Corrections (DOC) supervision. Headdress had pled guilty to stalking in 2012 and was sentenced to a three-year suspended DOC commitment, to run consecutively to a sentence he was already serving. He began serving his suspended sentence on March 20, 2020, with several conditions, including obtaining permission before leaving his assigned district, submitting monthly reports, and abstaining from alcohol and illegal drugs.The District Court found that Headdress violated these conditions multiple times. He failed to complete the Enhanced/Transitional Supervision Services (ETSS) program, absconded, and tested positive for methamphetamine. He also failed to maintain contact with his probation officer, Bruce Barstad, and was found in various locations without permission. The State petitioned to revoke his suspended sentence, and the District Court held an evidentiary hearing where Barstad testified about Headdress’s non-compliance.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Court found that Headdress had absconded between August 11, 2021, and December 22, 2021, as he made no attempts to contact his probation officer during this period. The Court determined that Barstad made reasonable efforts to locate Headdress, including issuing a hold order and regularly contacting Headdress’s family. The Court concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Headdress’s suspended sentence and denying him credit for elapsed time, as he was non-compliant throughout his supervision. View "State v. Headdress" on Justia Law

Richard DuCharme and Jennifer Brick are the parents of two minor children, S.D. and B.D. Their dissolution began in 2017, and since then, Brick has repeatedly refused to honor court-ordered parenting time. In June 2023, after a dispute about summer parenting time, Brick emailed S.D. claiming her father was keeping the girls illegally. Brick's behavior escalated to physical violence when she grabbed S.D.'s hair and punched her. S.D. escaped and reported the incident to the Bozeman Public Safety Center. Brick was charged with Partner Family Member Assault, and DuCharme filed for a temporary order of protection for both children.The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, granted a temporary restraining order and later held a hearing where S.D. testified about ongoing emotional abuse and the physical assault. The court granted a two-year Order of Protection for S.D. and a six-month Order of Protection for B.D., which was later extended indefinitely due to Brick's violation of the order.Brick appealed, presenting eight issues, including judicial bias, legal entrapment, misuse of court orders, due process violations, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and erroneous sentencing. The Montana Supreme Court addressed three main categories: the Order of Protection, related proceedings, and judicial bias.The court found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Order of Protection based on the history of emotional and physical abuse. Brick's arguments related to criminal proceedings and the parenting matter were not considered as they were not properly before the court. The court also rejected Brick's claim of judicial bias, noting that adverse rulings alone do not constitute bias.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision. View "Ducharme v. Brick" on Justia Law

Ned Gardner was charged with felony criminal endangerment and felony partner or family member assault in November 2020. The State of Montana did not file a notice to seek persistent felony offender (PFO) status at the omnibus hearing in January 2021. Instead, the State filed the notice under seal in September 2021, two weeks before the trial. Gardner objected to the untimely notice, arguing it did not give him ample time to prepare and that the State did not show good cause for the delay.The Fourth Judicial District Court denied Gardner's objection, reasoning that the late notice did not prejudice him and that he had ample time to object to the PFO designation. Gardner was found guilty of the partner or family member assault charge by a jury in October 2021. In February 2022, the District Court designated Gardner as a PFO and sentenced him to twenty years in prison with a ten-year parole restriction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the State failed to provide timely notice as required by § 46-13-108(1), MCA, and did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. The court emphasized that timely notice is crucial for a defendant to understand the potential penalties and prepare a defense. The court found that Gardner was prejudiced by the untimely notice, as it affected his ability to make informed decisions about his defense.The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's order designating Gardner as a PFO and remanded the case for resentencing without the PFO designation. View "State v. Gardner" on Justia Law

An employee of Lucky Lil’s Casino in Missoula, Montana, called 911 after failing to wake a man, McClellan, who was slumped over in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle. Officer Champa responded and, after waking McClellan, observed signs suggesting impairment. McClellan could not produce identification, and a search revealed a broken methamphetamine pipe. Further investigation confirmed McClellan’s driver’s license was suspended, and a subsequent search of the vehicle uncovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. McClellan was charged with Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs with Intent to Distribute.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, denied McClellan’s motion to suppress the evidence, ruling that the officer had particularized suspicion to expand the welfare check into an investigatory stop. McClellan pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case, focusing on whether the District Court erred in concluding that the officer had particularized suspicion to expand the welfare check into an investigatory stop. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the officer’s actions were justified under the community caretaker doctrine and that particularized suspicion arose during the interaction, allowing the investigatory stop to proceed lawfully. The court found that the officer’s observations and McClellan’s behavior provided sufficient grounds for the investigatory stop and subsequent search. View "State v. McClellan" on Justia Law

On January 1, 2019, Missoula police were surveilling suspected illegal drug activity outside a casino. Officers observed two vehicles, a Honda and a Volkswagen, leave the casino together and head to a nearby grocery store parking lot. Officer Griffith parked his patrol car behind the Honda, where Catherine Marie Rymal was a passenger. Without activating his lights or siren, Griffith approached the Honda and asked Rymal not to dig around in the car. Rymal explained she was looking for her dog’s leash. Griffith then asked if he could talk to her and inquired about their activities at the casino. Rymal mentioned they were waiting for a friend and had been gambling. Griffith asked for her ID, and Rymal disclosed she might have a warrant for a speeding ticket.The Montana Fourth Judicial District Court denied Rymal’s motion to suppress the drug evidence found during a subsequent search, ruling that her interaction with Officer Griffith was consensual and did not constitute an unlawful seizure. The court found that Rymal’s disclosure of her possible warrant was voluntary and provided reasonable suspicion for her detention.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Rymal was not seized at any point before she voluntarily disclosed her possible warrant status. The interaction between Rymal and Officer Griffith was deemed consensual, and Griffith’s conduct did not amount to a show of authority that would make a reasonable person feel they were not free to leave. Therefore, the evidence obtained was not the result of an unlawful seizure, and the motion to suppress was correctly denied. View "State v. Rymal" on Justia Law

David Stanley was convicted in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, for felony criminal possession of methamphetamine. Stanley appealed, arguing that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress drug evidence found during a post-arrest jail intake search. The key issue was whether the police had the requisite particularized suspicion to justify the investigative stop that led to Stanley's arrest and the subsequent discovery of the drugs.In the lower court, the District Court found that the police lacked particularized suspicion to justify the stop. However, it ruled that the "attenuation doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule applied, meaning the drug evidence did not need to be suppressed despite the initial unlawful stop. Stanley then pled guilty under a plea agreement that reserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the police had a reasonable particularized suspicion to stop Stanley. The court noted that the police received an anonymous tip about a fugitive, Daniel Sobrepena, who was reportedly wearing a distinctive red curly wig to avoid arrest. When Officer Ahmann saw Stanley wearing a similar wig in the area described, it was reasonable to suspect he might be Sobrepena or have information about him. The court found that the initial stop and subsequent questioning were justified and conducted within a reasonable scope and duration.The Montana Supreme Court concluded that the District Court reached the correct result in denying the motion to suppress, albeit for different reasons. The court affirmed Stanley's conviction, holding that the investigative stop was lawful and the resulting drug evidence was admissible. View "State v. Stanley" on Justia Law

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