Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court revoking the suspended portion of Defendant's sentence for failing to complete sex offender treatment while in prison, holding that because there was no requirement that Defendant complete sex offender treatment prior to his release on probation the district court lacked the authority to revoke Defendant's sentence.The district court revoked Defendant's sentence after finding that Defendant had not completed sex offender treatment. The court then imposed a six-year Department of Corrections commitment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the treatment condition of Defendant's suspended sentence did not specify when treatment was to be completed, the district court lacked authority to revoke Defendant's sentence and impose a new sentence on the basis that Defendant had refused treatment while in custody. View "State v. Beam" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, holding that, despite the Montana Legislature's later repeal of the Boot Camp Incarceration Program, Defendant's plea was voluntary at the time of sentencing.Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and sexual intercourse without consent. In exchange for Defendant's plea, the State agreed to recommend placement in the boot camp program. The court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment and recommended that Defendant be placed in the boot camp program upon completion of the first four years of his sentence. The Legislature later repealed the statutes authorizing the boot camp program. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw guilty plea based on the repeal of the boot camp program. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Legislature's repeal of the boot camp program did not retroactively render Defendant's plea involuntary or constitute good cause for withdrawal; (2) Defendant's plea was voluntary, and the State fulfilled its obligations under the plea agreement despite the Legislature's repeal of the boot camp program; and (3) the repeal of the boot camp program did not constitute an ex post facto law. View "State v. Newbary" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for attempted deliberate homicide and evidence tampering, both felonies, holding that the district court did not commit plain error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not commit plain error by not intervening sua sponte to limit or cure the State's closing argument that Defendant's failure to retreat or summon police prior to using deadly force was unreasonable; (2) the district court did not commit plain error by not intervening sua sponte to limit or cure the State's closing and rebuttal argument references to Defendant's post-Miranda silence; and (3) the State's closing argument regarding an alternative factual basis for the evidence tampering charge did not effect an improper de facto amendment of the substance of the charging information. View "State v. Trujillo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for criminal possession of dangerous drugs, a felony, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search.On appeal, Defendant conceded that probable cause existed for law enforcement's entry into his hotel room but argued that the agents' warrantless entry was not justified because no exigent circumstances existed. The district court relied on specific and articulable facts from the agents that prompt action was necessary to prevent the probable destruction of drug evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that exigent circumstances existed justifying the agents' warrantless entry into Defendant's hotel rooms. View "State v. Vegas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for sexual assault, holding that the municipal court erred when it instructed the jury on a definition of "consent" from the 2017 sexual assault statute and not the applicable 2015 statute, and the erroneous jury instruction prejudicially affected Defendant's substantial rights.At trial, the court instructed the jury, over Defendant's objection, on the definition of consent contained in recent amendments to the sexual assault statute. On appeal, Defendant argued that the municipal court failed to apply the correct law when instructing the jury on the elements of the claimed offense. The district court denied the appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the instructions, as a whole, did not fully and fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case; and (2) Defendant's substantial due process right was prejudiced by the erroneous jury instruction. View "City of Missoula v. Zerbst" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's drug-related convictions, holding that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence regarding Defendant's prior DUI convictions, and the error was not harmless.Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of dangerous drugs, methamphetamine, a felony; criminal possession of dangerous drugs, marijuana, a misdemeanor; and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in allowing testimony concerning her prior DUI convictions. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that because the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the evidence was inadmissible under Mont. R. Evid. 403. View "State v. Clausen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's request for credit for time served while he was released on bail during the pendency of his probation revocation proceeding, holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying credit for "street time" served under the sentence.Defendant was sentenced for two counts of felony partner or family member assault. Later, the district court found that Defendant had violated the terms of his suspended sentence. Defendant requested that the district court grant him credit against his sentence under Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203(7)(b) for four months of "street time" he had served on his sentence between his release on bond and sentencing. The district court denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by denying street time credit because there was evidence in the record that Defendant committed a violation of his sentence during the relevant period. View "State v. Jardee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed all but one of Defendant's convictions for six felonies stemming from a Ponzi scheme he devised that defrauded investors of $2 million, holding that one of the convictions violated the "multiple charges statute," Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-410, but the rest of the convictions may stand.Defendant was convicted of exploitation of an older person (common scheme), theft by embezzlement, (common scheme), failure to register as a securities salesperson (common scheme), failure to register a security (common scheme), fraudulent practices (common scheme), and operating a pyramid promotion scheme (common scheme). Defendant appealed, arguing that section 46-11-410(2)(a) precluded his convictions on five of the six counts with which he was charged because they were "included offenses" or "specific instances" of fraudulent practices. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's conviction for theft by embezzlement violates section 46-11-410 and must be vacated; but (2) Defendant's remaining convictions do not violate the multiple charges statute. View "State v. Brandt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of one count of partner or family member assault and one count of deliberate homicide, holding that the court erred in admitting some of the deceased victim's out-of-court statements, but the error was harmless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to sever the counts; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded evidence of the victim's drug use and denied Defendant's motion for a new trial; (3) the district court abused its discretion in admitting the victim's out-of-court statements as evidence of her state of mind, but the error was harmless; and (4) there were no grounds to apply the doctrine of cumulative error in this case. View "State v. Gomez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court denying Appellant's application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, ruling that holding individuals pursuant to a federal civil immigration detainer request is an arrest under Montana law and that a detainer request is not an arrest warrant and does not compel the re-arrest of a person otherwise entitled to release.Plaintiff was arrested and booked into county jail. When Plaintiff attempted to post his bond, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Border Patrol) sent the jail a civil immigration detainer request under the Immigration and Nationality Act and informed the bond company that the sheriff would continue to detain Plaintiff. Consequently, Plaintiff's bondsman declined to post his bond, and Plaintiff was not released. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the sheriff violated Montana law in honoring the Border Patrol's request. The district court ruled against Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Plaintiff's continued detention for a new purpose when he was otherwise entitled to release was an arrest under Montana law, and the sheriff lacked state arrest authority to detain Plaintiff on the basis of his potential removal under federal immigration law. View "Ramon v. Short" on Justia Law