Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was given a citation for violating Mont. Code Ann. 61-6-301(4), which prohibits operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance. At a bench trial before the justice court, Defendant’s attorney moved to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. The justice court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty. The district court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the justice court’s decision denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge for insufficient evidence, as there was sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant violated section 61-6-301(4). View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of attempted deliberate homicide, three counts of felony criminal mischief, and six counts of misdemeanor criminal mischief. After unsuccessfully seeking postconviction relief pursuant to two successive petitions, Defendant filed a third petition for postconviction relief, claiming newly discovered evidence. The district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant’s newly discovered evidence claim; and (2) the charging process used in Defendant’s criminal case was consistent with the 1972 Montana Constitution and Montana statutes. View "Kenfield v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with escape in Powell County. The State later stipulated that venue was proper in Yellowstone County. The Powell County District Court subsequently granted the State’s motion to dismiss the escape charge and dismissed the case without prejudice. Nearly seven months later, the State filed the escape charges in Yellowstone County. Before trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the case for lack of a speedy trial, alleging that his right to a speedy trial had attached upon his initial appearance on the Powell County charge. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant’s right to a speedy trial had not attached until the charges were re-filed in Yellowstone County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in calculating the length of the delay, as the speedy trial clock began running when charges first were filed in Powell County; (2) the time period from the dismissal of the charge initially filed against Defendant in Powell County to the filing of the charge in Yellowstone County is not counted for purposes of determining the length of the delay; and (3) the delay in this case did not establish a constitutional speedy trial violation. View "State v. Butterfly" on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant pled guilty to robbery. Since then, the district court revoked Appellant’s sentence three times. The third petition to revoke was filed in 2015. Appellant moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the State did not comply with the statutory procedure set forth in Mont. Code Ann. 46-23-1012(2). The district court denied the motion to dismiss and revoked Appellant’s probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss the revocation of his sentence pursuant to section 46-23-1012(2). View "State v. Rossbach" on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant pled guilty to robbery. Since then, the district court revoked Appellant’s sentence three times. The latest revocation occurred in 2015. Appellant appealed, asserting that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the revocation of his sentence on the grounds that the State did not comply with the statutory procedure set forth in Mont. Code Ann. 46-23-1012(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition to revoke, as the State complied with the plain meaning of the statute. View "State v. Rossbach" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with thirty-five counts of violating an order of protection. Defendant moved to dismiss thirty-four of the thirty-five counts on the grounds that the offenses were a continuing course of conduct rather than a series of individual crimes. The district court denied the motion. Defendant then entered a plea agreement with the State under which the State dropped all charges of violating an order of protection. Defendant instead entered a guilty plea to one count of felony stalking. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to an amended charge of criminal endangerment for having sexual intercourse with A.C., a fourteen-year-old, which resulted in A.C. becoming pregnant and giving birth to twins. The district court ordered Defendant to pay $35,667 in restitution to A.C.’s mother, which included $25,000 A.C.’s mother, D.C., claimed as lost wages due to the leave of absence she took from work to care for A.C. and the twins after the twins were born. Defendant appealed, challenging the restitution order and several of the conditions of his probation. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s restitution order, holding that the court did not err in awarding D.C. $25,000 in lost wages; and (2) reversed several of the probation conditions due to various errors. View "State v. Brave" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, endangering the welfare of children, and incest for giving methamphetamine to his daughter, S.K., allowing her to ingest methamphetamine while in his care, and having sexual intercourse or sexual contact with her. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err by concluding that S.K. was not legally accountable for Kline’s incest; and (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to the jury corroborating S.K.’s testimony regarding incest, and therefore, the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal based on the State’s failure to present corroborating evidence. View "State v. Kline" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated kidnapping, burglary, intimidation and escape. During the ensuing jury trial, Defendant appeared wearing a security leg brace. Defendant requested that the sheriff’s deputies remove his brace, but the district court denied the request, concluding that the leg brace was concealed enough that it did not prejudice Defendant. The jury found Defendant guilty of aggravated kidnapping, intimidation, and escape. The district court sentenced Defendant to forty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s request to order sheriff’s deputies to remove the security brace from Defendant’s leg during trial, holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the test set forth in State v. Herrick before denying Defendant’s request to remove his leg brace, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Rickett" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to felony burglary. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant and erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in his home pursuant to a search warrant; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made while in custody and statements he made while being interrogated. View "State v. Kasparek" on Justia Law