Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Neldia Marie Puccinelli, who was accused of embezzling funds from her employer, ProMark, between 2006 and 2009. After her employment was terminated, ProMark filed a civil suit against her, which was settled with an agreement that Puccinelli would transfer certain personal property to ProMark and make 84 monthly payments of $350. In 2011, the State filed criminal charges against Puccinelli for theft by embezzlement. She entered a plea agreement, which consolidated the three counts into one and recommended a fully suspended sentence with restitution consistent with the civil settlement agreement.The District Court rejected the plea agreement, speculating that Puccinelli would stop paying restitution if given a probationary sentence. The court imposed a 10-year commitment to the Montana Women’s Prison, with 5 years suspended, and ordered Puccinelli to pay $67,235 in restitution. Puccinelli's disability payments were suspended during her incarceration, which led to financial instability for her household. Upon release, Puccinelli resumed making regular payments towards restitution.In 2022, five months before Puccinelli was set to discharge her probation, the State filed a Petition for Revocation of Suspended Sentence, alleging Puccinelli violated the restitution conditions of her sentence. The District Court determined Puccinelli had violated the terms and conditions of her suspended sentence as she had not “completely paid restitution.” The court revoked her suspended sentence and committed her to the Department of Corrections for five years, all suspended, with “the same conditions and restitution requirements as was in the original Judgment with no credit for street time.”The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court's decision, finding that the lower court had abused its discretion when it revoked Puccinelli’s suspended sentence based on her failure to pay full restitution. The Supreme Court concluded that the violation should have been characterized as a compliance violation, which should have been excused pursuant to § 46-18-203(6)(b), MCA. The case was remanded to the District Court to vacate the August 25, 2022 Judgment on Revocation of Suspended Sentence and dismiss the petition for revocation. View "State v. Puccinelli" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the defendant, Johnathan James, who was convicted of felony Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Driving While Suspended. The charges stemmed from an incident where James was found asleep in his running vehicle at a gas station, surrounded by empty alcohol containers. The arresting officer, Deputy Sheriff Derek Breiland, testified that James exhibited signs of intoxication, such as bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and inability to maintain balance during a field sobriety test. James' blood alcohol concentration was later determined to be 0.322 percent.Prior to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, the case was heard in the District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, Lincoln County. During the trial, the defense counsel questioned the arresting officer's observations and suggested that James could have started drinking after he had safely parked his vehicle. The defense also objected to the officer's testimony that James was in "actual physical control" of his vehicle, arguing that it was a legal conclusion that invaded the province of the jury. The District Court overruled the objection, and the jury convicted James on both charges.Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the arresting officer's testimony was admissible as lay opinion testimony under Montana Rule of Evidence 701. The court reasoned that the officer's testimony was based on his perception and was helpful to the jury in determining a fact in issue. The court also noted that the defense had opened the door for clarification about what factors constitute "actual physical control" under State v. Sommers, thus making the officer's testimony properly admitted lay opinion testimony. The court concluded that it was not an abuse of discretion to allow the officer to testify that James was in "actual physical control" of his vehicle. View "State v. James" on Justia Law

Robert Michael Arellano was charged with multiple counts of sexual intercourse without consent, sexual abuse of children, and tampering with a witness, all involving a minor under 12 years of age. The State and Arellano entered into a plea agreement, which the District Court later deemed illegal. Arellano was subsequently tried by a jury and convicted on all counts, receiving a total sentence of 210 years, with 100 years suspended.The District Court initially accepted a plea agreement between Arellano and the State. However, the court later determined the agreement to be illegal due to the proposed sentence not being authorized by law. The State had incorrectly advised the penalty for the charges, leading to the plea agreement proposing a sentence not in line with the statutory requirements for the offenses committed. When the court pointed out the discrepancy, the State withdrew from the plea agreement and the case proceeded to trial.In the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, Arellano appealed the District Court's denial of his motion for specific performance of his plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the plea agreement was unlawful. The court found that the plea agreement proposed a penalty not authorized by law and also proposed that Arellano plead to a fictitious offense not recognized under Montana law. The court concluded that Arellano was not entitled to the enforcement of a plea agreement which proposed a penalty not authorized by law and proposed a plea to a fictitious offense. View "State v. Arellano" on Justia Law

The case involves Jeffrey Allen Westfall, who pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault and aggravated assault. The incident occurred at a motel in Lakeside, Montana, where Westfall assaulted a 69-year-old woman, F.C., who operated the motel with her husband. Westfall was later identified and apprehended. He was charged with attempted sexual intercourse without consent and aggravated assault. During the trial, Westfall exhibited disruptive behavior, repeatedly interrupting proceedings, arguing with his attorney, and expressing a desire to represent himself. His attorney requested a fitness evaluation to determine Westfall's ability to stand trial, but the court denied the request, viewing it as a delay tactic.The trial court proceedings were marked by Westfall's disruptive behavior, including interruptions, arguments with his attorney, and requests to represent himself. His attorney requested a fitness evaluation to assess Westfall's ability to stand trial, but the court denied the request, viewing it as a delay tactic. After the victim's testimony and the presentation of surveillance footage, Westfall and the prosecution reached a plea agreement. Westfall pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and attempted sexual assault in exchange for a recommended 50-year sentence with a 15-year parole restriction. The court sentenced Westfall to 20 years for aggravated assault and 50 years for attempted sexual assault, to run concurrently.In the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, Westfall appealed, raising three issues: whether he waived his claim challenging the trial court's failure to order a fitness evaluation when he pleaded guilty, whether his convictions for aggravated assault and attempted sexual assault violated double jeopardy, and whether the trial court erred in ordering him to pay trial costs and a presentence investigation report fee without inquiring about his ability to pay. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision on the first two issues, finding that Westfall had waived his right to appeal the denial of a fitness evaluation by pleading guilty and that his convictions did not violate double jeopardy. However, the court reversed the decision on the third issue, ruling that the trial court had failed to assess Westfall's ability to pay before imposing financial obligations. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this issue. View "State v. Westfall" on Justia Law

The defendant, William Jerome Carnes, was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He was charged with felony DUI for a fourth or subsequent offense, misdemeanor resisting arrest, and misdemeanor driving without a valid liability insurance policy in effect. Carnes failed to appear for his final pretrial conference, leading to an arrest warrant being issued. He was later arrested in Nevada for fleeing the scene of an accident and was sentenced to 24 to 72 months in the Nevada Department of Corrections.Carnes filed a pro se motion for a speedy trial or dismissal for lack of speedy trial and timely prosecution, citing the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Nevada Revised Statutes. The State argued that Carnes did not follow procedure as contemplated by statute to make a request for final disposition. The District Court agreed with the State and denied Carnes’s motion. Carnes then filed a motion to dismiss the case for the State’s failure to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, which was also denied by the District Court.In the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, Carnes appealed the order denying his motion to dismiss and the subsequent judgment on his plea of guilty to an amended charge of criminal endangerment pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. The court concluded that Carnes failed to preserve his right to appeal the District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. The court held that a defendant who voluntarily and knowingly pleads guilty to an offense waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses, including claims of constitutional rights violations which occurred prior to the plea. The court found that Carnes’s plea agreement contained no language reserving the right to appeal after his guilty plea and he did not comply with the statutory requirements to reserve the right to appellate review of the adverse pretrial ruling. Therefore, the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "State v. Carnes" on Justia Law

Shane Maggi, an inmate at Montana State Prison, was convicted of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner. The charges stemmed from an incident where Maggi and another inmate attacked Wesley Smith in his cell, causing puncture wounds and a fractured facial bone. At sentencing, the Third Judicial District Court, Powell County, declared Maggi a persistent felony offender and used that designation to impose a life sentence on the aggravated assault charge.The District Court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana. The appellant argued that the District Court erred in imposing a life sentence under § 46-18-220, MCA, for aggravated assault when Maggi had not previously been designated a persistent felony offender. The State had sought sentence enhancements related to the offenses being committed while Maggi was in official detention, including life imprisonment for the aggravated assault charge.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana agreed with the appellant's argument. The court held that a defendant must have been previously declared a persistent felony offender, prior to the defendant’s subsequent, present felony conviction for which the offender is being sentenced, to count as an aggravating circumstance. The court found that the District Court had incorrectly used its simultaneous designation of Maggi as a persistent felony offender to enhance his sentence for the same felony conviction. As such, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case for a new sentencing. The court did, however, uphold the District Court's decision to order Maggi’s sentences to run consecutively to all prior sentences but his Powell County matter DC-20-30. View "State v. Maggi" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the defendant, Luke Strommen, who was charged with Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (SIWC) and Sexual Abuse of Children. The charges stemmed from allegations made by two women, one of whom claimed that she had an ongoing sexual relationship with Strommen when she was a minor. The other woman alleged that Strommen possessed digital images of her engaged in sexual activity when she was 17. Strommen pleaded not guilty to both charges.In the lower courts, the State of Montana sought to present the testimony of a sexual assault behavioral psychologist, Dr. Sheri Vanino, remotely via two-way video conferencing due to her unavailability to travel to Montana for the trial. The defense objected, asserting that personal in-court cross-examination was essential. The District Court granted the State's motion, allowing Dr. Vanino to testify remotely. The trial resulted in Strommen being found guilty of SIWC and sentenced to a 40-year prison term.In the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, Strommen appealed his conviction, arguing that the District Court erroneously allowed the State to present adverse expert testimony remotely via two-way video conferencing at trial. The Supreme Court agreed with Strommen, holding that the allowance of Dr. Vanino's remote testimony violated Strommen's fundamental right to personal face-to-face confrontation of adverse prosecution witnesses in the courtroom at trial, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and Mont. Const. art. II, § 24. The court reversed Strommen's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Strommen" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the petitioner, Tom Nichols, also known as Nikki, who is currently serving a prison sentence for sex crimes against children. Nikki, a transgender woman in the process of transitioning, filed a petition for a sealed-record name change, arguing that an open-record proceeding could jeopardize her safety due to her gender identity.The District Court of the Third Judicial District initially denied Nikki's petition. The court's decision was based on the fact that Nikki failed to demonstrate probable cause that her safety was at risk, a requirement under Section 27-31-201, MCA, for a petition to proceed on a sealed-record basis. The court also had to be satisfied that the petitioner was not attempting to avoid debt or hide a criminal record.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court noted that district courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a petition for a sealed-record name change. The Supreme Court would only reverse a district court decision if it was arbitrary or exceeded the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. In this case, the Supreme Court found that Nikki failed to provide specific instances of abuse or explain why an open-record proceeding would change her circumstances at the Montana State Prison. Furthermore, Nikki did not provide any support for the alleged risk of harm from members of the public. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the evidence was insufficient to support Nikki’s petition. View "In re Name Change of Nichols" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Kyle Severson, who was convicted for mitigated deliberate homicide after shooting Tyler Hayden. Severson, his girlfriend, her sister, and his daughter were at a convenience store when Hayden and Dalton Watson arrived. Hayden approached Severson's car, and Severson shot him, claiming he feared Hayden would harm him or his daughter. Severson was charged with deliberate homicide and later found guilty of mitigated deliberate homicide, resulting in a forty-year prison sentence.Severson appealed his conviction, arguing that the District Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the State's failure to disclose favorable evidence and that the cumulative effect of errors in the District Court denied him a fair trial. The undisclosed evidence included law enforcement investigative reports of a burglary at Severson's home and the contents of Watson's cell phone.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana concluded that the cumulative effect of errors in the proceedings denied Severson his constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process. The court found that the prosecutor's misconduct and the State's failure to disclose certain evidence had a direct bearing on the credibility of the witnesses at trial. The court reversed Severson's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Severson" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Eric Boudette, who was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, First Offense, following a jury trial on May 31, 2022. Boudette appealed the verdict, asserting that his motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct was wrongly denied. He also contended that his plea for a new trial was wrongly denied on the grounds that his arrest was an unlawful seizure, the Justice Court lacked jurisdiction to try the case, and the statutory speedy trial deadline had expired by the time his trial was held.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case following Boudette's appeal against the District Court's affirmation of the Justice Court's decision. The Supreme Court analyzed several aspects of the case, including jurisdiction, the Community Caretaker Doctrine, allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and the speedy trial issue.The Court ruled that Boudette could rightfully be charged in either county where he was found driving under the influence. They also determined that the arresting officer acted in her capacity as a community caretaker when she entered Boudette's vehicle to check on his wellbeing, thus making the arrest lawful. Regarding the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, the Court found no evidence of perjury or the State unreasonably impeding Boudette from obtaining an independent blood test. Lastly, the Court declared that Boudette had waived his right to a speedy trial by requesting a continuance.Hence, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decision. View "State v. Boudette" on Justia Law