Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to a net five-year suspended term of commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections and a $15,000 fine for her convictions for felony possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, holding that the district court erred in imposing the fine.The fine at issue included the maximum $5,000 fine on criminal possession of dangerous drugs (CPDD) and an additional $10,000 for the thirty-five percent market value fine mandated by Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-130(1). The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in deviating from the statutory presumption that a defendant is entitled to a deferred imposition of sentence on a first-offense CPDD; but (2) erred in imposing the fine required by section 45-9-130(1) without a qualifying basis on the trial evidence and without consideration of the factors specified in Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-213(3). View "State v. Wilkes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence and in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State had failed to meet its burden of proving that he was on a "way of this state open to the public" because he was found by a police officer in a vehicle that was parked in a permitted parking spot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to assess whether the parking space at issue was adapted and fitted for public travel and in common use by the public, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a mistrial based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. View "State v. Krause" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's convictions for deliberate homicide and tampering with physical evidence, holding that Defendant's constitutional right of confrontation was violated, requiring reversal of his conviction of tampering with physical evidence.On appeal, Defendant argued that he was denied his right under the United States and Montana Constitutions to confront witnesses against him when the State presented a foundational witness in real time by two-way videoconference. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) furtherance of an important public policy to allow the witness to testify via two-way videoconferencing was not demonstrated in this case, and therefore, the first prong of the analysis set forth in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), was not satisfied; and (2) Defendant's right to a fair trial was not undermined by the prosecutor's closing argument. View "State v. Mercier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court resentencing Defendant to life without parole for three counts of deliberate homicide committed when he was a juvenile, holding that the district court erroneously concluded that Defendant was irreparably corrupt and permanently incorrigible.Defendant was convicted for three murders he committed when he was seventeen years old and was sentenced to three consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole. Defendant later filed a petition for postconviction relief asserting that his sentence was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. __ (2016). After a hearing, the district court resentenced Defendant to three consecutive life terms. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it appointed a neutral expert for the resentencing hearing; (2) did not err when it denied Defendant's request for a jury to determine whether he was irreparably corrupt and permanently incorrigible; and (3) erred when it refused to consider post-offense evidence of rehabilitation at the resentencing hearing. View "State v. Keefe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's three convictions for sexual abuse of children (possession of child pornography), holding that Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-410(2)(a) does not prohibit multiple convictions for possession of child pornography when the images were discovered on a single day on a single device.Defendant admitted to downloading several photos and videos depicting child pornography and pled guilty to four counts, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss as to three of the counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly concluded that Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(e) allows conviction for each image of child pornography that Defendant possessed. View "State v. Felde" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that Mother's attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel.At issue was whether counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance when he stipulated to the request of the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division that no reunification services be provided to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's termination of Mother's parental rights, holding (1) Mother was not prejudiced by any alleged failure on her attorney's part to object to the Department's request not to provide reunification services; (2) the district court had grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights and made the findings necessary to support termination; and (3) the district court did not err in finding that termination would be in the children's best interests. View "In re D.A.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the City of Missoula Municipal Court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss a petition to revoke sentence, holding that the district court correctly affirmed the municipal court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence.In 2017, the City filed a petition to revoke Appellant's sentence for Appellant's compliance violations. Appellant moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the amendment to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-2013 removed the municipal court's authority to revoke suspended sentences for compliance violations without first showing the probation office had exhausted all statutory alternatives. The municipal court denied the motion and revoked and reimposed Appellant's twelve-month suspended sentence, concluding that the 2017 changes to the statute do not apply to misdemeanors. The district court affirmed, holding (1) the 2017 amendments to section 46-18-2013 certain only to revocation of felony probation and parole; and (2) the municipal court acted within its authority when it revoked Appellant's suspended sentence for violating its terms and conditions. View "City of Missoula v. Pope" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court vacating its prior order to expunge Justin Dickey's misdemeanor records, holding that the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings brought under the Misdemeanor Expungement Clarification Act and that the district court properly determined that venue was not proper under Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-1105.Dickey filed a petition for expungement of his misdemeanor criminal records, referred only to "misdemeanor criminal record(s)" generally. The district court granted the petition. On reconsideration, the district court vacated its prior expungement order and dismissed the matter, determining that venue was improper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to a proceeding brought under the Expungement Act; and (2) the district court did not err in determining that Dickey's prior speeding violation in Kalispell was insufficient to establish proper venue in the Eleventh Judicial District for expungement of misdemeanors under section 46-18-1105. View "In re Dickey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the sentence and financial assessments imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense, holding that the district court erred by assessing a $500 surcharge in compliance with Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-236(1)(b).The district court imposed the statutory minimum fine of $5,000 for felony DUI and sentenced him to a thirteen-month commitment to the Department of Corrections, followed by a three-year suspended sentence subject to certain terms and conditions. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his sentencing objections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by assessing the $5,000 fine; (2) did not err by assessing the cost of imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-731(4)(b); (3) did not err by assessing a $100 fine pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-232(1); but (4) erred by assessing the $500 surcharge without considering Defendant's ability to pay. View "State v. Ingram" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict of the district court following Defendant's conviction of incest against his ten-year-old stepdaughter, holding that the district court erred when it granted the State's motion in limine excluding the testimony of Defendant's expert witness regarding general information of false reports in child sexual abuse cases.In granting the State's motion in limine, the district court deemed Defendant's expert witness unqualified to testify under State v. Scheffelman, 820 P.2d 1293 (Mont. 1991), which allows a party to elicit expert testimony that directly comments on an alleged victim's credibility if the expert satisfies certain criteria. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by applying the Scheffelman exception criteria to exclude the expert witness's testimony, and the error was not harmless. View "State v. Reams" on Justia Law