Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the attempted deliberate homicide of her husband, Mike. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it (1) excluded Appellant's proposed expert witness testimony from two expert witnesses about the behaviors of individuals in abusive relationships and the experts' diagnoses of Appellant with post-traumatic stress disorder; and (2) admitted Mike's alleged prior inconsistent statement to a volunteer firefighter responding to a medical emergency when Mike could not remember making the statement, as the statement was admissible under Mont. R. Evid. 801(d)(a)(A). View "State v. Lotter" on Justia Law

Five City employees were disciplined by the City for accessing pornography on their government computers. The local newspaper requested access to documents detailing the investigation of the misconduct and the employees' punishment. The City disclosed some documents, refused to release the disciplinary corrective action forms, and redacted all information that could be used to identify the disciplined employees or uninvolved third parties. The newspaper filed a petition for declaratory relief and writ of mandamus. The district court ordered that the City release copies of the investigative documents and disciplinary forms without redactions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by ordering that identifying information for the five City employees be released to the newspaper, as the employees' reasonable expectation of privacy in their identities with regards to internal disciplinary proceedings clearly outweighed the limited merits of public disclosure. View "Billings Gazette v. City of Billings" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs and sentenced to a ten-year term of incarceration. On appeal, Appellant argued that insufficient evidence supported his conviction because the State did not produce sufficient evidence at trial that the substance given to a third party was marijuana, a dangerous drug. The State responded that although the substance was not tested, the third party's testimony and the fact that Appellant had a medical marijuana card were sufficient to prove that the substance was marijuana. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's conviction, holding that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance in question was a dangerous drug. View "State v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were covered by the State's employee healthcare benefit program established under Title 2, chapter 18, MCA ("the Plan"). Both Plaintiffs were injured in separate automobile accidents. All of the medical bills of both plaintiffs were paid by either the Plan or by third-party insurers. In both cases, medical care providers returned a claim payment to the Plan because the claim had been paid by other insurers. Plaintiffs asserted that the Plan should not have retained the payments returned by the medical providers but should have paid those amounts to Plaintiffs unless they had been made whole or fully compensated for all losses they incurred as a result of the automobile accidents. The district court concluded that the State's operation of the Plan was subject to the "made-whole" provisions Title 2, and thus, no insurer had a right to subrogation unless the insured was made whole for all losses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the made-whole requirement of Mont. Code Ann. 2-18-902(4) applied to the Plan insofar as it had withheld payments or had retained payments returned by a healthcare provider because the medical expenses had been paid by a third party. View "Diaz v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered Alford pleas to the felony offenses of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, intimidation, and aggravated burglary. Appellant later moved to withdraw his Alford pleas, contending that his mental state at the time of the pleas precluded him from knowingly and voluntarily making a plea decision, he was innocent to the changes against him, and the district court's colloquy was insufficient to determine whether the pleas were knowingly and voluntarily made. The district court denied Appellant's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to establish that there was good cause to allow him to withdraw his prior Alford pleas to the charges against him; and (2) the matter should be remanded to the district court for a determination of the total amount of restitution for the victim's future counseling costs. Remanded. View "State v. Peterson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of felony sexual abuse of children for having engaged in sexually-related conduct online with a deputy sheriff who represented himself as a fourteen-year-old female. Defendant was arrested based on his potential plans to travel to Montana to meet the supposed fourteen-year-old in person. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) Montana's sexual abuse of children statute does not violate the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause by sweeping too broadly; and (2) the district court properly authenticated extensive internet chat logs and properly admitted them into evidence, and the court's ruling did not unfairly prejudice Defendant. View "State v. Hantz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the charges against Defendant when, after Defendant disclosed information and defense strategies to the State Medical Examiner, communication occurred between the Medical Examiner and the County Attorney; (2) the district court properly determined that the State's witnesses were not unnecessarily cumulative or unfairly prejudicial to Defendant; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the State's evidence was not so prejudicial as to render the trial fundamentally unfair; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct; and (5) Defendant's counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "State v. Ugalde" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence, holding (1) the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct; (2) the district court id not err by failing to inquire into Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and the voluntariness of his decision to represent himself; (3) the district court correctly concluded that Defendant was not deprived of his right to speedy trial; (4) the district court did not err by admitting evidence of Defendant's prior assault of his wife; (5) a jury instruction on mitigated deliberate homicide did not rise to the level of plain error; and (6) the district court properly imposed parole conditions. View "State v. MacGregor" on Justia Law

Thomas Madsen, a sheriff's deputy, was charged with mistreating prisoners pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-204 for his behavior toward K.J., a female juvenile who was brought to the county law and justice center at the request of her parents for assistance in getting her transported to residential treatment. Madsen moved to dismiss the charge, contending that K.J. was not a prisoner under section 45-5-204. The district court agreed and dismissed the charge against Madsen because K.J. was a juvenile, had not been convicted of an offense, and was not being held in a State facility. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that, under the circumstances, K.J. was a prisoner under section 45-5-204(1), and the charging information filed in this case was adequate to state an offense. View "State v. Madsen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of omitting material facts relating to his offer and sale of a security. Defendant appealed, arguing that the multiple charges statute, Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-410, precluded his convictions on two of the three counts with which he was charged. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment as to two of Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the State's assertion that "each count had a different element" was incorrect, as each count had the same statutory element, and the offenses arose from the same transaction; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion under section 46-11-410. Remanded. View "State v. Parks" on Justia Law