Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that the district court did not err by determining that Appellant’s Texas convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) constituted prior convictions for purposes of sentencing on his current Montana DUI conviction. Appellant pled guilty to the DUI but challenged the use of his prior DUI convictions, concluding that he was convicted in Texas under a lower standard than Montana law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Texas DUI statutes were similar to Montana’s laws in effect at that time, rendering Appellant’s Texas convictions as prior convictions for purposes of Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-734(1)(a). View "State v. Olson" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to the possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court made sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress to allow informed appellate review; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the police did not need to obtain Defendant’s consent to search the vehicle and its internal compartments. View "State v. Baty" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal endangerment, DUI, failure to carry proof of insurance, and driving without a valid driver’s license. Instead of a three-year deferred sentence recommended in the plea agreement, the district court sentenced Defendant on her criminal endangerment charge to five years with the Department of Corrections with three years suspended. The district court also imposed four court information technology surcharges for each count totaling $40. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the State did not breach the term of the plea agreement that it recommend a deferred sentence on the criminal endangerment charge; and (2) the district court erred in imposing the court information technology user surcharge per count and not per user. Remanded to modify the imposition of the surcharge to a per user basis for a total of one $10 surcharge. View "State v. Ellison" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal mischief, a felony, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled nolo contendere to the offenses charged in the information. The district court imposed a six-year sentence on the criminal mischief conviction and a concurrent six-month sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The court suspended both sentences. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon denial of a speedy trial. View "State v. Brekke" on Justia Law

Seventeen-year-old Defendant was charged with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. Defendant filed two motions to transfer each charge to Youth Court. The district court denied both transfer motions. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent. Defendant was sentenced to fifty years in prison, with ten years suspended. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s refusal to transfer the charges to Youth Court, holding that the district court did not err in denying the transfer motions; and (2) remanded for entry of an amended judgment and review of the sentence as provided by law, holding that the district court erred by not including the requirements found in Mont. Code Ann. 41-5-2503(1) in Defendant’s sentence. View "State v. Talksabout" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute. After a sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a six-year deferred sentence, with a $1,500 fine to be paid to the Eastern Montana Drug Task Force, and a $15,000 fine pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-130. Defendant appealed, challenging the imposition of the $15,000 fine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the $15,000 fine was not a sentence enhancement that violated the requirements of Apprendi v. New Jersey and Mont. Code Ann. 46-1-401; (2) the $15,000 fine did not violate Montana’s constitutional prohibition of “excessive fines”; and (3) Defendant’s double jeopardy argument, which he did not raise below, did not warrant plain error review, and Defendant was not entitled to relief pursuant to the Lenihan Rule. View "State v. Le" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of eight counts of sexual intercourse without consent, three counts of felony sexual assault, three counts of sexual abuse of children, and two counts of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs. Defendant was sentenced to a cumulative total of five consecutive life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of prior acts under Mont. R. Evid. 404(b) after balancing its prejudicial effect against its probative value; and (2) to the extent the district court erred in applying Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-511(2), Montana’s Rape Shield Law, the error was harmless. View "State v. Daffin" on Justia Law

After she was arrested for driving under the influence, Defendant was transported to the hospital for a blood draw. When her handcuffs were removed to facilitate the blood draw, Defendant fled. The State charged Defendant with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence based on Defendant’s leaving the hospital and preventing a blood sample from being drawn. Defendant moved to dismiss the tampering charge, arguing that blood is not evidence until it is removed from the body. The district court denied Defendant’s motion. The jury then found Defendant guilty. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that State v. Peplow is dispositive in this case and that physical evidence of Defendant’s alcohol content is limited to that which is collected for analysis of her blood or breath. View "State v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Joseph Forsythe was charged with partner/family member assault (PFMA) for his physical altercation with his wife, Giana. While confined and under a no contact order, Forsythe sent letters to Giana telling her to provide false testimony regarding the incident. After Giana gave the letters to the authorities, the State charged Forsythe with felony tampering with a witness. Forsythe was found guilty of both PFMA and tampering. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the district court (1) did not err in determining that the letters Forsythe sent to Giana were not protected by spousal privilege; (2) erred in allowing a lay witness to testify regarding handwriting samples, but the error was harmless; and (3) imposed an illegal sentence by ordering Forsythe to pay a $20 information technology surcharge rather than a $10 surcharge as authorized by statute. View "State v. Forsythe" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of negligent endangerment, leaving the scene of an injury accident, and failing to give notice of an accident. The municipal court included six conditions to Defendant’s suspended sentence for negligent endangerment, four of which pertained to alcohol use. Defendant appealed, arguing that the municipal court did not establish a sufficient nexus between his criminal history and the conditions imposed on his sentence that related to alcohol. The district court upheld the municipal court’s alcohol-related conditions on Defendant’s sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the municipal court’s alcohol-related conditions were both legal and reasonable and had a sufficient nexus to Defendant’s history of alcohol abuse and reckless driving. View "City of Billings v. Barth" on Justia Law