Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The district court did not err in concluding that the statute of limitations had run on Miles Kingman’s claim for conversion of property. Kingman was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. Thereafter, Thomas Weightman, the senior evidence technician for the Bozeman Police Department, informed Kingman that his personal property, including a watch, was authorized to be released. Weightman, however, later advised Kingman that the watch was not his. Kingman initiated this action alleging that Weightman failed to return Kingman’s wristwatch and seeking damages for theft and malicious intent. The district court deemed the theft claim as one for conversion of property. The court then entered judgment in favor of Weightman, concluding that the two-year limitation period on the conversion claim had expired prior to the filing of the suit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kingman’s conversion claim was time barred. View "Kingman v. Weightman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction by jury verdict of sexual intercourse without consent, holding that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a portion of Defendant’s testimony from his first trial on the same charge. After Defendant was first convicted of sexual intercourse without consent the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded. During the retrial on the same charge the district court admitted a limited portion of Defendant’s testimony from his prior trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate that admission of the evidence of his statement from the first trial violated his substantial rights. View "State v. Franks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the jury court convicting Defendant of abuse or exploitation of an older person for whom Defendant was appointed a guardian and a conservator in a separate case. The court held (1) Defendant was not entitled to a hearing on his request to disqualify the presiding trial judge because the judge entered orders against Defendant’s interest in the guardianship and conservatorship case; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to present certain documents and witness testimony that the prosecutor disclosed shortly before trial; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that alleged juror misconduct did not warrant a new trial. View "State v. Strang" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of aggravated assault. On appeal, Defendant primarily challenged the effectiveness of his counsel regarding the jury instructions. The Supreme Court held (1) defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to request a bystander justifiable use of force jury instruction; and (2) the district court did not impose illegal parole conditions by employing the language “for any period of community supervision” because that language was qualified by the statement that followed applying “conditions of probation.” View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed an order entered in the district court denying Defendant’s petition for touch DNA testing.Defendant was convicted of burglary, designated a persistent felony offender, and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. Defendant later requested that touch DNA analysis be conducted on fingerprint evidence collected from areas around the crime scene. Referring to the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) and federal precedent holding that touch DNA evidence can constitute new evidence, Defendant argued that his request for DNA testing was timely. The district court denied relief, concluding that even if the IPA applied to Defendant’s request, Defendant failed to set forth a plausible theory under which the DNA evidence would establish his innocence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that there was no reasonable probability that Defendant would have been exonerated if favorable DNA results had been obtained. View "Sartain v. State" on Justia Law

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The court held that the district court carefully considered Montana's sentencing policies, statutory factors, and other relevant evidence in deciding defendant's sentence. The court explained that the district court's reference to defendant's unresponsive answer, which did not affirmatively invoke a constitutional right, was made in passing and was part of a much larger assessment of defendant's attitudes and character. The court held that this singular comment did not impact defendant's sentence. In this case, defendant's sentence was within the statutory limits, and was supported by the totality of the district court's appropriately stated reasons. View "Montana v. Otto" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court entered after a jury concluded that Defendant violated Montana campaign finance and practices laws during his 2010 primary campaign for Senate District 35. The district court trebled the verdict amount and entered judgment in the amount of $68,232.58. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commissioner of Political Practices satisfied the statutory procedures for filing a judicial action against Defendant; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motions in limine to exclude two witnesses from testifying as experts; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial; and (4) the district court acted within its discretion in trebling the verdict amount. View "Commissioner of Political Practices for State of Montana v. Wittich" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part Defendant’s sentence for his conviction of felony possession of dangerous drugs but remanded to the district court with instructions to strike twenty-three recommended conditions for community supervision. The district court sentenced Defendant to ten years in prison and included a number of conditions in the written judgment. The Supreme Court held (1) the prosecutor’s remarks at sentencing were improper, but they did not constitute reversible error because they did not prejudice Defendant; (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing; (3) the district court did not impose an unlawful sentence; and (4) the twenty-three recommended conditions listed in the written judgment were not included in the oral pronouncement of sentence and therefore must be stricken. View "State v. Lehrkamp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief, in which Defendant claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in several respects. The Supreme Court agreed with the district court’s conclusions, holding that counsel did not render ineffective assistance by (1) not objecting to the mental-state jury instruction; (2) not objecting to evidence regarding Defendant’s brothers or references to the term “Modern Outlaw”; (3) briefly referring to Defendant’s probationer status; and (4) not objecting to the admission of testimony that allegedly vouched for the testimony of others. View "Golie v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, rendered after a jury trial, for deliberate homicide and several other offenses. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court relieved the State of its burden to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by giving jury instruction number twelve stating that “when circumstantial evidence is susceptible to two interpretations, one that supports guilt and one that supports innocence, the jury determines which is most reasonable.” The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that, considering all the instructions, the disputed instruction did not adversely affect Defendant’s substantial rights. View "State v. Sanchez" on Justia Law