Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual intercourse without consent. The victim was four years old at the time of the offenses. Defendant was sentenced to 100 years in prison and was not eligible for parole for the first fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motions that were made during trial to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence; and (2) Defendant’s claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call expert witnesses was more properly brought by a petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. McAlister" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant in Ravalli County with felony theft by common scheme for double-cashing seven paychecks issued by an employment agency located in Ravalli County. The paychecks were issued for Defendant’s work as a temporary employee at a senior living community in Missoula County. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him, alleging that they were brought in an improper venue. After a non-jury trial, Defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Ravalli County was a proper venue for the State to charge Defendant with felony theft by common scheme. View "State v. Deshazer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of seven counts of attempted deliberate homicide. The district court sentenced Defendant to serve a life term in prison on each count and declared him ineligible for parole. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred when it denied his request to instruct the jury on misdemeanor assault as a lesser-included offense of attempted deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not act arbitrarily, act without conscientious exercise of judgment, or exceed the bounds of reason when it determined that the evidence supported the jury’s consideration of only the offenses of attempted deliberate homicide or attempted aggravated assault, and further, the court’s refusal to instruct the jury on misdemeanor assault did not prejudice Defendant’s substantial rights. View "State v. Stewart" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), a fifth-offense felony. Defendant was sentenced to a thirteen-month commitment at the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) followed by a five-year suspended commitment at the DOC. Defendant appealed, arguing that his blood sample was not taken in compliance with Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-405(1). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly ruled that the results of Defendant’s blood-alcohol test were admissible at trial because Defendant’s blood sample was taken in compliance with section 61-8-405(1). View "State v. Allport" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration in excess of 0.08. Defendant appealed and filed a motion to suppress the results of two separate blood alcohol concentration tests. The district court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently entered a guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that one blood test, drawn more than eight hours after the act of driving, was taken within a reasonable time under the circumstances, and therefore, the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress on this ground. View "State v. Hala" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted deliberate homicide. Defendant appealed, raising two issues for review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s attorney was not ineffective in failing to request an accomplice instruction, as the instruction was inconsistent with Defendant’s claim of innocence; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon the prosecution’s failure to disclose a video statement of a witness, as the late disclosure of the recording did not violate Defendant’s right to obtain exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland. View "State v. Root" on Justia Law

Defendant, a resident of Idaho, was charged with driving under the influence (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense. Defendant moved to dismiss the felony DUI charge, arguing that Idaho’s reduction, pursuant to a plea agreement, of his third DUI conviction to a second DUI, precluded Montana from charging him as a fourth DUI for sentencing purposes. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant had three prior convictions for DUI and that the label Idaho placed on the convictions was immaterial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that all of Defendant’s DUI convictions should be considered for purposes of sentencing, as Montana law requires all prior DUI convictions to be counted when determining whether felony enhancement is appropriate, and Montana has given full faith and credit to each conviction rendered by Idaho. View "State v. Barrett" on Justia Law

After a bench trial in the justice court, which is not a court of record, Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration in excess of 0.08. Defendant appealed to the district court and moved to suppress the results of two separate blood alcohol concentration (BAC) tests. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the release of the first test violated HIPAA, but any defect was harmless error, and that the second test, drawn more than eight hours after the act of driving, was taken within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the second test was taken within a reasonable time under the circumstances; and (2) because the district court’s ruling on the first issue is affirmed, the Court declines to reach the issues Defendant raised regarding the first test results. View "State v. Hala" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with a number of offenses under Mont. Code Ann. Title 87. Defendant moved to dismiss two of the counts for unlawful possession of wildlife on the grounds that the statute of limitations barred prosecution. The district court dismissed the two counts, concluding that the limitations period for unlawful possession of wildlife begins on the date a person takes possession of the unlawfully taken wildlife. The State then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control presenting the legal question of whether a violation of Mont. Code Ann. 87-6-202(1) is continuous conduct for statute of limitations purposes. The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition and exercised supervisory control, holding that a person stops violating section 87-6-202(1) - and the limitation period begins to run - only when he or she ceases to possess illegally taken wildlife. View "State v. Krueger" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of felony sexual intercourse without consent and felony sexual assault. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution to compensate the victims for fifty-two hours of counseling. Appellant later filed a petition for remission of restitution. The district court denied Appellant’s order after a hearing at which the victims testified. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court was well within the bounds of reason in determining that Appellant should not be released from his restitution obligation. View "State v. Passmore" on Justia Law