Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to failure to register as a sexual or violent offender. The district court sentenced Defendant to Montana State Prison, not to the Department of Corrections as agreed - for three years, all suspended, and imposed eight probation conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the district court erred by rejecting the plea agreement without allowing Defendant the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea; (2) the district did not err by imposing seven of the conditions on Defendant’s sentence; and (3) Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the use of the term “pornography” rendered the remaining condition unconstitutionally vague. View "State v. Nauman" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to felony criminal endangerment and misdemeanor aggravated driving under the influence. At a sentencing hearing, the State, as agreed, recommended a six-year commitment to the Department of Corrections, with three years suspended. The district court declining to adopt the sentence recommendation and sentenced Defendant to ten years suspended. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that the district court failed to comply with Mont. Code Ann. 46-12-211(4) because the court had not informed him that it was rejecting the agreement and had not offered him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence and reversed and remanded for another sentencing hearing, holding that the district court failed to comply with section 46-12-211(4) when it departed from the plea agreement without providing Defendant with the full advisory required by the statute. View "State v. Zunick" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court remanded the case to correct illegal portions of the sentence. On remand, the district court filed a first amended judgment and sentence sentencing Defendant to a term of commitment and recommending conditions of parole and ordering conditions of probation, one of which was payment of restitution. Because the district court never specified the amount of restitution to be paid, the State filed a motion for a ruling on restitution. The district court then entered a second amended judgment and sentence ordering Defendant to pay $16,361 in restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) had the authority to specify in its second amended judgment and sentence the total amount of restitution; (2) did not err by recommending parole restrictions; and (3) did not improperly base the length of Defendant’s sentence on the amount of time it would take her to pay restitution. View "State v. Winter" on Justia Law

Defendant was a passenger in a van that was parked at a park. A police officer parked behind the van, approached the van, and asked the driver for her driver’s license and Defendant for identification. After learning that the driver did not have a license and that Defendant had an outstanding warrant, the officer placed Defendant under arrest. Defendant subsequently produced a baggie filled a methamphetamine. Defendant filed a motion to suppress her statements and the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked particularized suspicion to perform an investigatory stop when he asked her and the driver for identification. The district court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that there had not been a seizure for which particularized suspicion was required. Thereafter, Defendant pled guilty to one count of criminal possession of dangerous drugs, a felony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was not particularized suspicion to stop or seize the driver that could support or properly lead to the subsequent investigation of Defendant. Remanded. View "State v. Strom" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault with a weapon, criminal endangerment, and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. The district court sentenced Defendant to a total of thirty years in prison with five years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) plain error review of Defendant’s contention that the failure to immediately assign him counsel violated his constitutional and statutory rights was not warranted here; (2) the district court did not err in refusing Defendant’s proposed jury instructions regarding factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness identification; (3) the district court erred by admitting evidence of condoms found in Defendant’s van, but the error was harmless; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to declare a mistrial based on the court’s comments to a co-conspirator. View "State v. Zlahn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offenses of felony DUI and criminal endangerment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test taken pursuant to a search warrant because once he refused to cooperate in sobriety tests, Montana law prohibited law enforcement officers from taking any action to obtain a blood sample for testing. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that the law enforcement officers in this case acted in accordance with the principles of Montana law in obtaining a search warrant for Defendant’s blood. View "State v. Minett" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of misdemeanor assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that the justice court erred in admitting testimony regarding threats and an assault allegedly committed by Defendant prior to the charged assault, and the error entitled him to a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the justice court properly determined that the State met its discovery obligation to disclose to Defendant the witnesses it may call and the evidence it may introduce and did not abuse its discretion by allowing the evidence at trial. View "State v. Lamarr" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of accountability for arson, a felony, and accountability for theft, a felony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) defense counsel’s failure to offer a “mere presence” jury instruction constituted deficient performance under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington, counsel’s conduct fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness,” and Defendant was prejudiced by her counsel’s inadequate performance; and (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by telling the jurors to base their decision on factors other than the law and evidence. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Chafee" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled no contest to the felony offense of mitigated deliberate homicide. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea, which the district court denied. Appellant appealed from the denial of his motion but later waived his appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel against his trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied Appellant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief, holding (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to provide to Appellant a copy of a report by a forensic pathologist, but Appellant was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s error; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that appellate counsel was deficient by advising Appellant to withdraw his direct appeal in order to file a petition for postconviction relief. View "Haagenson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for and convicted of obstructing a peace officer. Defendant appealed, and the district court conducted a trial de novo. During trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. The district court denied the motion. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of obstructing a peace officer. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that Defendant engaged in conduct under circumstances that made Defendant aware that it was highly probable that his conduct would impede the performance of the officer’s lawful duties. View "State v. Eisenzimer" on Justia Law