Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of criminal possession. The district court sentenced him as a persistent felony offender to a term of twenty years, with ten of those years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of methamphetamine that law enforcement officers found on Defendant’s person after conducting a search incident to his lawful arrest for violating the terms of his parole; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law following the evidence hearing relating to his suppression motion; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s third discovery request; (4) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s post trial motion to dismiss based upon the Court’s failure to arraign him on the second amended information; and (5) the district court conducted an “adequate initial inquiry” into Defendant’s complaints concerning his assigned counsel. View "State v. Crawford" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with one count of arson, a felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded no contest to arson. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea, asserting that the district court did not comply with the statutory procedures for rejecting plea agreements. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, concluding that Defendant entered the plea voluntarily and knowingly. The district court then sentenced Defendant to ten years’ imprisonment with five years suspended. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to conduct another sentencing hearing, holding that the plea agreement in this case should be construed as a Mont. Code Ann. 46-12-211(1)(b) agreement and that the district court erred by not following the required procedures for rejecting the parties’ plea agreement. View "State v. Langley" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of deliberate homicide and related felonies and misdemeanors. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the deliberate homicide conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) because there was no ineffective assistance of counsel on Appellant’s individual claims, there can be no cumulative error. View "Heavygun v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and related charges. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction for aggravated assault because it was an included offense of the charge of felony murder and affirmed the remaining convictions. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting that his attorneys at trial and on appeal provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in deciding that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

Three defendants (jointly, Appellants) were convicted in municipal court of various traffic violations, including driving with a suspended license. The district court affirmed the convictions. Appellants appealed separately to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and affirmed, holding (1) Mont. Code Ann. 61-5-212 imposes absolute liability, and a conviction under this statute does not require a culpable mental state; (2) because the evidence presented in each of Appellant’s trials met the requirements for conviction under section 61-5-212, the district court did not err in affirming Appellants’ convictions; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the letters notifying Appellants of their suspensions were admissible as certified copies of public records under Mont. R. Evid. 904. View "City of Kalispell v. Omyer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of incest, sexual assault, and sexual intercourse without consent against a child age sixteen or younger, sexual intercourse without consent against a child age twelve or younger, and sexual assault against a child age sixteen or younger. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly excluded evidence that three of the four victims suffered prior sexual abuse by others; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that certain statements made by the prosecutor rose to a level that triggered the threshold for undertaking plain error review. View "State v. Awbery" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of incest, sexual intercourse without consent, and sexual assault. The district court sentenced Defendant to terms of imprisonment on each of the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion in excluding Defendant’s expert witness from testifying at trial, as Defendant was qualified in both education and experience to provide the testimony sought by Defendant; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by mechanistically applying the Rape Shield Law to exclude evidence that Defendant offered at trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Colburn" on Justia Law

After a warranted search of Defendant’s home, law enforcement officers seized sixty-seven live marijuana plants and numerous miscellaneous paraphernalia. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his residence, arguing that the application for the warrant lacked sufficient facts to establish probable cause that his home contained drugs or drug-related evidence. The district court denied Defendant’s combined motion to suppress and dismiss. Thereafter, Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession with intent to distribute dangerous drugs. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and dismiss, holding that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding there was a probability of criminal activity. View "State v. Kant" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Defendant was sentenced to five years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss the case for lack of evidence, arguing that the arresting police officer did not have particularized suspicion to conduct a stop of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motions to suppress and to dismiss, as, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the police officer had particularized suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defendant. View "State v. Ballinger" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged by information with driving under the influence of alcohol fourth or subsequent offense (DUI). The information provided that Defendant had been convicted of DUI on three previous occasions, including once in 1999. Defendant moved to dismiss the 1999 DUI conviction, alleging that his constitutional right to counsel was violated in that proceeding. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to satisfy his burden of proving that his 1999 conviction was constitutionally infirm; and (2) the district court erred by stating in the judgment that Defendant was convicted of a DUI rather than a DUI per se. Remanded. View "State v. Hancock" on Justia Law