Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In August 2022, Cole Levine moved from New Mexico to Missoula, Montana, to attend law school. On August 18, 2022, a woman identified as M.H. was sexually assaulted in an alley. During the incident, the assailant took M.H.'s phone but dropped another phone, which was later identified as belonging to Levine. Following an investigation, Levine was charged with several offenses, including attempted sexual intercourse without consent and aggravated assault. On October 3, 2022, the District Court issued a search warrant to Verizon Wireless for data related to Levine's phone, which was stored on servers outside Montana.Levine filed a motion to suppress the data obtained from the warrant, arguing it was an illegal extraterritorial warrant. The Fourth Judicial District Court agreed, ruling that Montana courts did not have jurisdiction to issue such a warrant to an out-of-state entity. The court relied on the reasoning from United States v. Webb and found that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply, declaring the warrant void ab initio. Consequently, the court granted Levine's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrant.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the Secure Communications Act (SCA) grants Montana district courts jurisdiction to issue search warrants for electronic communications stored by out-of-state third parties. Additionally, Montana law under § 46-5-605(3)(a), MCA, provides an independent basis for such jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that the District Court had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant and erred in granting Levine's motion to suppress. The case was remanded for continuation of proceedings. View "State v. Levine" on Justia Law

Law enforcement responded to the defendant's home after his ex-girlfriend reported that he had threatened suicide during a phone call. The officers, aware of his history of alcohol abuse and mental health issues, entered his home without a warrant after he failed to respond to their attempts to contact him. Inside, an officer shot the defendant, believing he was armed. The defendant was charged with Assault on a Peace Officer.The District Court of the Third Judicial District denied the defendant's pretrial motions to dismiss and suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry. The court also denied his motion for a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation, where the defendant claimed the State failed to disclose that the officer who shot him had been shot at in a prior incident. The jury found the defendant guilty.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the officers' warrantless entry was justified under the community caretaker doctrine, given the exigent circumstances of a potential suicide. The court also found no Brady violation, as the undisclosed evidence about the officer's prior incident would not have changed the trial's outcome. The court concluded that the officers acted reasonably in their entry and subsequent actions, and the defendant's conviction was upheld. View "State v. Case" on Justia Law

In 2003, Joshua Duane Wolfblack was charged with burglary and theft in Flathead County, Montana. He pled guilty to felony theft, and the burglary charge was dismissed. He received a ten-year sentence with five years suspended. In 2010, Wolfblack was charged with felony sexual intercourse without consent in Lewis and Clark County, pled guilty, and received another ten-year sentence with five years suspended. Subsequently, his 2003 theft sentence was revoked, and he was given a five-year suspended sentence to run consecutively to his 2010 sentence.The District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, revoked Wolfblack’s 2010 theft sentence in 2022, imposing a five-year term. Wolfblack appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to impose a consecutive sentence upon revocation. The District Court had denied his motion to dismiss, reasoning that the sentences were presumed to run consecutively under Montana law.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that under § 46-18-203, MCA, the District Court did not have the authority to impose a consecutive sentence upon revocation that extended the original sentence. The court emphasized that sentencing upon revocation is governed by § 46-18-203, MCA, not § 46-18-401, MCA, which applies to initial sentencing. The court found that the District Court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence violated the statutory limits, as it effectively increased the term of the original sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s judgment, vacated the sentence, and dismissed the proceedings. View "State v. Wolfblack" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Shandor S. Badaruddin, was sanctioned by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, for his conduct as defense counsel in a criminal trial involving his client, Kip Hartman, who faced multiple felony charges related to securities and insurance fraud. The trial was conducted under strict time constraints due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the court allocated equal time for both the prosecution and defense. Badaruddin was accused of mismanaging his allotted time, leading to a mistrial declaration by the District Court.The District Court found that Badaruddin had deliberately delayed the trial, which led to the mistrial. Consequently, the court imposed monetary sanctions amounting to $51,923.61 against Badaruddin for the costs associated with the trial. Badaruddin appealed the sanctions, arguing that he was not given adequate notice of the court's concerns and that his actions were not deliberate but rather a result of the challenging circumstances.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and noted that the U.S. District Court had previously ruled that the mistrial declaration was erroneous. The U.S. District Court found that Badaruddin's actions did not constitute deliberate delay and that his efforts to manage the trial time were competent. The U.S. District Court's ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that Hartman could not be retried due to double jeopardy protections.Given the federal court's findings, the Supreme Court of Montana concluded that there was no basis for the sanctions under § 37-61-421, MCA, as there was no multiplication of proceedings. The court reversed the District Court's sanction order, determining that the costs incurred were not "excess costs" as defined by the statute. View "Badaruddin v. 19th Judicial District" on Justia Law

Cody Joseph Vernon Flesch was arraigned on a charge of bail jumping in Yellowstone County District Court. During the hearing, the court was informed of an existing detention order from Powell County. Despite Flesch's objections and claims of having posted bond, the court confirmed the detention order and set a new bond for the bail jumping charge. As the court was issuing the bond amount, Flesch attempted to flee the courtroom but was quickly restrained by officers.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court denied Flesch's motion to dismiss the charge of attempted escape, determining that a reasonable person would have understood they were being remanded based on the Powell County order. The court also denied the State's motion in limine to preclude Flesch from arguing that he was not subject to official detention, leaving it as a question of fact for the jury. Flesch was subsequently found guilty of attempted escape by a jury and sentenced to seven years in prison.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the State's charging documents provided sufficient facts to establish probable cause that Flesch was subject to official detention when he attempted to flee. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the definition of "official detention" includes constructive restraint and that Flesch's actions fell within this scope. Additionally, the court found that Flesch waived his claim that Judge Harada should have disqualified herself, as he did not raise the issue in a timely manner and failed to demonstrate actual bias or prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's denial of Flesch's motion to dismiss and upheld his conviction. View "State v. Flesch" on Justia Law

In October 2018, law enforcement responded to a motel room in Missoula, Montana, where they found Kaleb Williams injured and Megan McLaughlin and Jason Flink deceased, all having been shot. Preston Csoo Rossbach, along with Jonathan Whitworth and Ty Butler, had driven to Missoula to confront Raven Lamere over allegedly bad drugs. They picked up LaBenza Charlo, who arranged drug deals, and went to Lamere’s motel. When Lamere was not present, they left but returned shortly after. Whitworth, carrying a gun, shot the room’s occupants, and Rossbach allegedly directed the shooting and stabbed the victims. Rossbach was later arrested and charged with multiple offenses, including deliberate homicide.The Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula County tried Rossbach. During voir dire, the court denied Rossbach’s challenge to remove a prospective juror for cause, leading him to use a peremptory challenge. The jury heard testimony from various witnesses, including jailhouse informants who testified under cooperation agreements. The jury convicted Rossbach of two counts of deliberate homicide, assault with a weapon, tampering with evidence, and two counts of intimidation. Rossbach filed a motion for acquittal or a new trial, which the District Court denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the challenge for cause of the prospective juror, as the juror’s responses did not demonstrate bias. The court also found no violation of Rossbach’s confrontation rights, as he was allowed sufficient cross-examination of the informants. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the conviction for deliberate homicide under the felony-murder rule. Lastly, the court found no Brady violation warranting a new trial, as the late-disclosed letter did not significantly impact the informant’s credibility. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s rulings and Rossbach’s conviction and sentence. View "State v. Rossbach" on Justia Law

In the early morning of January 2, 2020, Whitefish Police responded to a report of a vehicle collision in an apartment complex parking lot. Witness Clint Slosson observed a truck hitting a parked car, and the driver, later identified as Joshua Zumwalt, appeared intoxicated. Officers found the truck registered to Zumwalt and located his apartment. After knocking and observing movement inside, Zumwalt eventually answered the door and agreed to step outside, where officers conducted a DUI investigation, leading to his arrest.The Municipal Court denied Zumwalt's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the officers' observations, ruling that the officers did not violate his reasonable expectation of privacy. Zumwalt was convicted of DUI, and his appeal to the Eleventh Judicial District Court was unsuccessful. He argued that the search was unlawful and that the prosecution improperly elicited expert testimony without proper foundation.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the officers did not conduct an unlawful search as they remained in common areas of the apartment complex where Zumwalt had no reasonable expectation of privacy. The court also found that the officers' actions were minimally intrusive. Regarding the expert testimony, the court agreed that the foundation for the officers' opinions on Zumwalt's intoxication level was insufficient. However, it deemed this error harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of Zumwalt's intoxication, including witness testimony, video evidence, and field sobriety tests. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding Zumwalt's DUI conviction. View "City of Whitefish v. Zumwalt" on Justia Law

Shane Clark Johnson was charged with deliberate homicide in 2013 for the death of his brother, Travis. The jury could not reach a verdict on deliberate homicide but convicted Johnson of negligent homicide with a dangerous weapon. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The State again charged Johnson with deliberate homicide but amended the charge to negligent homicide after Johnson filed a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. The second jury found Johnson guilty of felony negligent homicide and that he used a weapon in the commission of the offense.In the first trial, Judge Daniel Boucher allowed Johnson to present a defense of justifiable use of force, but limited evidence about Travis’s violent behavior and other specific acts. Johnson testified that Travis attacked him, leading to a struggle over a gun, which resulted in Travis’s death. The jury convicted Johnson of negligent homicide. On remand, Judge Matthew J. Cuffe presided over the second trial. Johnson did not present a self-defense theory but argued the shooting was accidental. The prosecutor’s closing arguments included comments on the State’s charging decisions and the lack of evidence that Travis was suicidal, which Johnson’s counsel did not object to at trial.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction. The court found that the prosecutor’s comments were permissible and did not warrant a mistrial. The court also declined to exercise plain-error review for the unobjected comments about the State’s charging decisions. Johnson’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were deemed not record-based and more appropriate for postconviction relief. The court held that the District Court legally imposed a consecutive weapon enhancement sentence in addition to the persistent felony offender sentence. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

On May 7, 2021, a citizen reported seeing a man, later identified as Thomas Wojtowicz, stumbling and crawling to his vehicle in a parking lot. Officer Haydon responded and found Thomas in the driver’s seat of a green Ford Escape, smelling of alcohol and slurring his speech. Thomas admitted to drinking but claimed he was waiting for his girlfriend to pick him up. Thomas failed non-standardized field sobriety tests and refused a breathalyzer. He was arrested for DUI, and a blood test later showed a high blood alcohol content.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denied Thomas’s motion to suppress evidence and admitted the blood toxicology results over his objection. Thomas was found guilty of DUI by a jury. He appealed, arguing the blood evidence was improperly admitted, his motion to suppress should have been granted, and there was insufficient evidence to prove he was in actual physical control of the vehicle.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the blood toxicology evidence was properly admitted, as the procedural safeguards were met and any issues with the blood collection kit’s documentation went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The court also found no unlawful search or seizure occurred, as the officer’s actions were justified by particularized suspicion. Finally, the court determined there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find Thomas in actual physical control of his vehicle. The court affirmed the lower court’s decisions and the jury’s verdict. View "State v. Wojtowicz" on Justia Law

Neil Lynn Nunes was charged with multiple felonies, including Failure to Give Notice of Change of Residence and Tampering with Witnesses or Informants, across three consolidated cases. The charges were filed between December 2019 and February 2020. Nunes's trial was initially set for July 2020 but was delayed multiple times, leading to a total delay of 496 days for the first case, 484 days for the second, and 413 days for the third. Nunes filed motions to dismiss the charges due to lack of a speedy trial, which were denied by the District Court. The jury eventually found him guilty on all counts.The Ninth Judicial District Court denied Nunes's motions to dismiss, attributing 158 days of the delay to Nunes himself, as he had requested a continuance to allow for discovery. The court found that the State had provided all necessary discovery before Nunes's motion to continue. The remaining delays were attributed to institutional reasons, including court scheduling conflicts and COVID-19 concerns, which were weighed minimally against the State.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case, applying a four-factor balancing test to determine if Nunes's right to a speedy trial was violated. The court found that the initial delay was reasonable for pretrial preparation, and the subsequent delays were either caused by Nunes or were institutional delays that weighed minimally against the State. The court also noted that Nunes had asserted his right to a speedy trial but had caused substantial delays himself. Finally, the court found no significant prejudice to Nunes, as his incarceration was due to his own actions, and he did not demonstrate that his defense was impaired.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision, concluding that Nunes's right to a speedy trial was not violated. View "State v. Nunes" on Justia Law