Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A group called Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts submitted a proposed constitutional amendment, Ballot Issue 6 (BI-6), which would require all judicial elections in Montana to remain nonpartisan and mandate that any new courts created after the amendment’s effective date have judges elected on a nonpartisan basis. The initiative was submitted to the Secretary of State, who forwarded it for review. The Legislative Services Division completed its review, and the Attorney General then conducted a legal sufficiency review.The Attorney General of Montana determined that BI-6 was not legally sufficient under Montana law, specifically citing a violation of the separate-vote requirement in Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution. This provision requires that if more than one constitutional amendment is submitted at the same election, each must be prepared and distinguished so it can be voted on separately. The Attorney General concluded that BI-6 contained two distinct substantive changes: one regarding nonpartisan judicial elections and another regarding the method of selecting judges for newly created courts. Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts challenged this determination in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, seeking a declaratory judgment that BI-6 was legally sufficient.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether BI-6 violated the separate-vote requirement. The Court held that BI-6 proposed two substantive changes that were not closely related: requiring all judicial elections to be nonpartisan and mandating that judges in new courts be elected rather than appointed. The Court found that combining these changes in a single measure would prevent voters from expressing separate preferences and could result in “logrolling.” Therefore, the Court affirmed the Attorney General’s determination and denied the petitioner’s request, holding that BI-6 was not legally sufficient. View "Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

A group called Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts (MNC) submitted a proposed constitutional initiative, CI-132, which would add a section to the Montana Constitution stating that judicial elections shall remain nonpartisan. MNC also submitted a proposed ballot statement: “CI-132 amends the Montana Constitution to require that judicial elections remain nonpartisan.” After the initiative and statement were submitted to the Secretary of State and reviewed by the Legislative Services Division, the Montana Attorney General conducted a legal sufficiency review. The Attorney General found the initiative legally sufficient but rejected MNC’s proposed statement, arguing it did not accurately reflect the current constitutional text and failed to define “nonpartisan.” The Attorney General then issued a revised statement, which MNC challenged as misleading and prejudicial.MNC filed an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General’s revised statement violated statutory requirements and asking the Court to certify its own proposed statement. The Attorney General responded, defending his revised statement and criticizing MNC’s version for not reflecting the constitutional status quo and lacking a definition of “nonpartisan.”The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the Attorney General’s revised statement was misleading because it implied CI-132 would change the status quo, when in fact judicial elections in Montana are already nonpartisan by statute. The Court also found that a definition of “nonpartisan” was unnecessary, given voters’ familiarity with the term and the absence of a statutory definition. The Court concluded that MNC’s proposed statement was a true and impartial explanation of the initiative in plain language, meeting statutory requirements. The Court certified MNC’s statement to the Secretary of State and granted the petition for declaratory judgment. View "Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in which the defendant was accused of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent with the complainant, K.R., who had spent the afternoon and evening drinking at several bars. The two were acquaintances and exchanged messages on Facebook, with K.R. inviting the defendant to her home. K.R. later testified that she did not remember the events after leaving the bar, including her communications with the defendant, driving home, or leaving her door unlocked. She recalled regaining awareness during a sexual encounter at her home, at which point she told the man to stop. The defendant asserted that he did not know K.R. was unable to consent, pointing to her actions and communications as evidence that she appeared functional.The Second Judicial District Court of Montana presided over the trial. The court excluded evidence of K.R.’s past alcohol use and denied the defense’s request to present expert testimony on the effects of regular alcohol consumption. The court also instructed the jury that the defendant could be found guilty if he was aware of a “high probability” that K.R. was unable to consent, rather than requiring actual knowledge. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years suspended.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the district court’s jury instruction on the mental state required for conviction and its exclusion of certain evidence constituted reversible error. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred by giving a result-based instruction for “knowingly,” which lowered the State’s burden of proof and violated the defendant’s due process rights. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excluding evidence of K.R.’s past drinking habits or the expert testimony as offered. The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Pierce" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of sexual intercourse without consent in 2017 and sentenced to 40 years in prison, with 20 years suspended. After an appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the conviction due to the improper admission of statistical evidence and remanded for a new trial. While awaiting retrial, the defendant was released on bail, returned to work, and cared for his mother. At the second trial, both parties presented expert witnesses who testified about general behaviors of sexual assault victims, but did not opine on the specific facts of the case. The State’s expert, Dr. Vanino, remained in the courtroom during the defense expert’s testimony, in violation of a witness exclusion order. The District Court allowed Dr. Vanino to be recalled as a rebuttal witness, and the defense was permitted to recall its own expert in response.After the second conviction, a new psychological evaluation indicated the defendant had made progress in treatment and matured. At resentencing, the defendant requested a sentence consistent with a prior plea offer, while the State sought a harsher sentence. The District Court increased the sentence to 50 years with 30 years suspended, citing the defendant’s decision to appeal, retry the case, lack of remorse, and the impact on the victim.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed two main issues. First, it held that the District Court erred in interpreting Montana Rule of Evidence 615 to categorically exempt expert witnesses from exclusion orders, but found the error harmless because both parties’ experts were allowed to rebut each other and neither testified to case-specific facts. Second, the Court held that the increased sentence after retrial violated due process, as it was based on the defendant’s exercise of constitutional rights and not on new, objective information. The Court affirmed the conviction, reversed the increased sentence, and remanded for amendment of the judgment to restore the original suspended term. View "State v. Grimshaw" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a law firm and its principal, challenged a Montana statute enacted in 2021 that prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s vaccination status or possession of an immunity passport. The law applies broadly to businesses, governmental entities, employers, and public accommodations, with certain exceptions for schools, daycare facilities, and healthcare providers. One provision of the law also prohibits requiring individuals to receive vaccines authorized only for emergency use or still undergoing safety trials. The plaintiffs alleged that the statute violated several provisions of the Montana Constitution, including rights to a clean and healthful environment, equal protection, inalienable rights, and the constitutional requirement that a bill’s subject be clearly expressed in its title.The case was first heard in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Richland County. The District Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed most of their constitutional claims, but allowed the claim regarding the bill’s title and single-subject requirement to proceed. On remand from the Montana Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Netzer Law Office, P.C. v. State, the District Court ultimately held that the main antidiscrimination provision of the law complied with the constitutional clear-title requirement, but that the provision prohibiting mandates for emergency use or trial vaccines did not, and voided that subsection.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ other constitutional claims. The Supreme Court held that the law’s title was sufficiently clear and not misleading as to its main antidiscrimination provision, affirming its validity. However, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s invalidation of the provision regarding emergency use and trial vaccines, holding that this subsection was germane to the bill’s general purpose and did not violate the clear-title or single-subject requirements. Thus, both challenged provisions of the statute were upheld. View "Netzer v. State" on Justia Law

A man was involved in a single-vehicle accident in Gallatin County, Montana, where his Jeep left the road, struck a sign, and then drove away. Witnesses reported the incident, and law enforcement traced the vehicle to the man’s residence using the license plate information. Upon arrival, officers observed damage to the Jeep and encountered the man, who exhibited signs of impairment such as bloodshot eyes and a dazed demeanor. The man admitted to purchasing and inhaling a can of Dust-Off, a product containing difluoroethane (DFE), and acknowledged that he had passed out while driving. Field sobriety tests indicated impairment, and a subsequent blood test confirmed the presence of DFE.The Gallatin County Justice Court denied the man’s motions to suppress evidence, which alleged a lack of particularized suspicion, unlawful search and seizure, and a Miranda violation. After a bench trial, the court found him guilty of misdemeanor DUI (third offense). The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, affirmed the conviction and the denial of the suppression motions, concluding that law enforcement had particularized suspicion, that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the driveway or the exterior of the Jeep, and that no custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings had occurred.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo. It held that law enforcement had particularized suspicion to investigate for DUI based on the totality of the circumstances, including the crash, the man’s behavior, and his admissions. The Court found no unlawful search or seizure, as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas searched, and the man voluntarily provided the Dust-Off can. The Court also determined that no custodial interrogation occurred before arrest, so Miranda warnings were not required. The Court declined to address an unpreserved evidentiary claim and found sufficient evidence supported the DUI conviction. The conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Ellis" on Justia Law

On May 29, 2003, two Blaine County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a domestic disturbance involving Laurence Dean Jackson Jr. in Harlem, Montana. During a pursuit through a field, both deputies were shot; Deputy Rutherford died from a gunshot wound to the chest, and Deputy Janis was severely injured. Jackson, claiming an alcohol-induced blackout, could not recall the events, leaving Janis as the sole eyewitness. At trial, the State relied on Janis’s testimony and physical evidence to argue that Jackson shot both deputies after a struggle. Jackson’s defense presented expert testimony challenging the State’s account, including a theory that the fatal bullet may have been fired by Janis, not Jackson.Following a 17-day trial in October 2004, Jackson was convicted of deliberate homicide and attempted deliberate homicide, receiving life sentences without parole. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in 2009, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2010. In 2011, Jackson filed a petition for postconviction relief in the Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Blaine County, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The District Court allowed for additional evidence and expert review but ultimately denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding Jackson’s claims lacked specific factual support as required by Montana law.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Jackson’s petition without a hearing. Applying the Strickland v. Washington standard, the Court held that Jackson failed to present established facts showing deficient performance or prejudice by counsel. The Court found Jackson’s claims speculative and unsupported by the record, concluding the District Court acted within its discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

A woman was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy in Ravalli County, Montana, for driving a vehicle with expired registration. The stop followed a call from a citizen informant reporting unusual activity at a residence known for prior drug activity, and an off-duty trooper’s observation of the woman leaving that residence in the vehicle. During the stop, the deputy questioned the woman about her activities and associations with the residence, and she provided explanations consistent with her presence there for lawful reasons. The deputy, suspecting drug activity, ultimately seized the vehicle and the woman’s purse, later obtaining a search warrant that led to the discovery of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in the purse.The Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, denied the woman’s motion to suppress the evidence found in her purse. The court held that the deputy had particularized suspicion to extend the traffic stop beyond the registration issue to investigate possible drug activity, and that there was probable cause to seize the vehicle and its contents, including the purse. The court also found that the search warrant was supported by probable cause and that the woman had not shown any false statements in the warrant application.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court held that while the deputy had particularized suspicion to extend the stop and inquire about drug activity, the suspicion was dispelled by the woman’s answers and did not ripen into probable cause to seize the vehicle or the purse. The Court found the district court’s findings regarding the woman’s demeanor and the basis for probable cause to be clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "State v. Carter-Brueggeman" on Justia Law

The defendant, while on probation for prior convictions, was involved in a series of incidents that led to multiple criminal charges. After fleeing from law enforcement during a stop, he was apprehended and his backpack, which he initially denied owning, was searched. The search revealed illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a mask matching the description of one worn by a gunman in a recent shooting. He was subsequently charged with attempted deliberate homicide, assault with a weapon, drug offenses, and obstructing a peace officer. Additionally, the State sought to revoke his previously suspended sentences.The First Judicial District Court of Montana denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in his backpack, finding that law enforcement had particularized suspicion to justify the stop and subsequent search. The court also denied his motion to substitute counsel after a hearing, concluding that the defendant’s complaints did not establish good cause for new representation. The defendant was convicted by juries on the drug charges and the attempted deliberate homicide and assault charges. The court revoked his suspended sentences and imposed new sentences, ordering all to run concurrently.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana addressed three main issues. First, the Court held that the District Court erred by allowing a key witness to testify via video deposition at trial without a proper showing of the witness’s unavailability, violating the defendant’s confrontation rights. The State conceded this error, and the Supreme Court reversed the convictions for attempted deliberate homicide and assault with a weapon, remanding for a new trial on those charges. The Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and the motion to substitute counsel, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court also ordered new sentencing for the drug convictions and the revocation of suspended sentences, as the original sentences were influenced by the now-reversed convictions. View "State v. Songer" on Justia Law

Victory Insurance Company, a Montana property and casualty insurer, issued workers’ compensation policies to several businesses in 2019. Later that year, Victory entered into an agreement with Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company to reinsure and then purchase Victory’s book of business, including the relevant policies. Victory notified its insureds by phone and sent a single email on December 31, 2019, stating that their policies would be “upgraded” to Clear Spring policies effective January 1, 2020. All policies were rewritten under Clear Spring as of that date.The Montana Commissioner of Securities & Insurance (CSI) initiated an enforcement action in December 2022, alleging that Victory had illegally cancelled its policies and could be fined up to $2.7 million. After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment before a CSI Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner found that Victory committed 165 violations of Montana’s insurance code and recommended summary judgment for the CSI. The CSI adopted this recommendation, imposing a $250,000 fine with $150,000 suspended, payable only if further violations occurred within a year. Victory sought judicial review in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, which affirmed the CSI’s decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case, applying the same standards as the district court. The Court held that the Hearing Examiner properly granted summary judgment because Victory’s actions constituted cancellations under the insurance code, regardless of whether they could also be considered assignments. The Court also held that Victory’s due process rights were not violated during the fine imposition process, that the statutory delegation of fine authority to the CSI was constitutional, and that Victory was not entitled to a jury trial because there were no material factual disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Victory Insurance v. State" on Justia Law