Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, elder abuse, and failure to comply with licensing requirements. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison for aggravated burglary, ten years in prison for elder abuse, and six months in jail for the licensing violation. All sentences were to run concurrently. Defendant appealed, arguing that receiving multiple convictions for elder abuse and aggravated burglary violated Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-410(2)(d) and that her counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that elder abuse and aggravated burglary do not constitute multiple convictions for the same offense and do not violate section 46-11-410(2)(d), and therefore, Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail. View "State v. Hooper" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six felony offenses of incest, sexual intercourse without consent, and sexual assault. During closing argument by Defendant’s attorney, an audience member interrupted and said, “Well I’d like to say that God is faithful and just to those who confess their sins.” On appeal, Defendant argued that the spectator’s remark deprived him of a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while the spectator’s comment was improper, it was not so serious that it caused a manifest miscarriage of justice, and the district court did not commit reversible error in addressing the improper remark. View "State v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to felony theft for stealing a car. The threshold value for stolen property to support a charge of felony theft was $1,500. At a sentencing and restitution hearing, the district court imposed restitution of $2,500. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in imposing a restitution obligation of $2,500. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly relied upon the evidence to set the restitution obligation; and (2) because the victim presented evidence of valuation in the amount of $2,500, the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute with a persistent felony offender designation. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized in the search of his car, asserting that the arresting officers lacked a particularized suspicion of wrongdoing involving narcotics sufficient to justify a canine sniff of his car. The district court denied the motion. Defendant entered a plea agreement admitting to the charges but reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, the district court did not err in determining that there was particularized suspicion to support the canine search of Defendant’s car. View "State v. Marino" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of partner or family member assault, third or subsequent offense. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Defendant’s other crimes or acts under the transaction rule, Mont. Code Ann. 26-1-103; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to use leading questions to elicit testimony from the victim - who was an adult with a developmental disability, mild mental handicap, and with confusion about time and place - on direct examination. View "State v. Sayler" on Justia Law

In September 2013, Defendant was arrested for possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia and was jailed for more than ten months while he awaited testing results from the State Crime Lab. Trial was finally held at the end of July 2014. By then, Defendant had been incarcerated for 309 days. Before trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of a speedy trial. The district court denied the motion. The jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of both charges. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial because he did not receive protection of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Velasquez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony incest against his minor child, T.W. Prior to trial, the State obtained T.W.’s medical records but failed to disclose the medical records to the defense. After the trial, Defendant gained access to the medical records. The records provided evidence that T.W. suffered from psychosis and that T.W. may have previously made and then recanted an allegation of sexual abuse against her mother. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial based on the State’s failure to disclose T.W.’s medical records. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the medical records contained favorable evidence to Defendant’s defense; and (2) the State’s failure to alert Defendant of the substance of the records caused Defendant prejudice. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Weisbarth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court affirmed Defendant’s conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) the justice court did not deny Defendant a fair trial when it refused to allow him to cross-examine the arresting officer about his administrative leave; (3) the justice court did not err when it allowed the officer to testify as an expert on horizontal gaze nystagmus; and (4) the justice court did not err in refusing Defendant’s proposed jury instructions on breath test refusal. View "State v. Krenning" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged by information with numerous sex offenses. Defendant filed a motion to change venue based on the amount of pretrial publicity surrounding the case. The district court denied the motion. The court also denied Defendant’s motion to suppress voice identification evidence. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of twenty-seven charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for change of venue, as Defendant failed to show anything beyond a bare allegation that the community was infected with prejudice; and (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress voice identification evidence, as the facts indicated sufficient indicia of reliability to allow the voice identification into evidence. View "State v. Griego" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with seven sex offenses and one offense of tampering with evidence. Less than one week before trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, contending that several motions recently filed by the State were untimely and that the State committed discovery violations. The district court conducted an emergency in-chambers conference that afternoon, but Defendant did not appear at the conference. During the conference, the district court vacated the trial date and continued the jury trial to a later date. The district court then denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of sexual assault. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion dismiss, arguing that he was prejudiced by his absence at the emergency hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no reasonable possibility that Defendant’s absence from the emergency conference caused him prejudice. View "State v. Blake" on Justia Law