Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) Defendant failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to evidence at trial; (3) the State did not violate Defendant's right to due process by using Defendant's silence after receiving Miranda warnings against him at trial, as the issue was raised during cross-examination of Defendant and focused on Defendant's alibi; and (4) Defendant failed to establish that his conviction should be reversed based upon cumulative error, as there was no error in his conviction. View "State v. Morsette" on Justia Law

In 1992, Petitioner was convicted of incest. Petitioner was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment, and the sentencing court required that Petitioner register as a sexual offender. In 2012, Petitioner filed a petition requesting relief from his requirement to register as a sexual offender, filed pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-23-506(3)(b). After a hearing, the district court concluded that Petitioner failed to establish the statutory requirements necessary to be relieved from the requirements of registration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court exercised proper discretion in denying Petitioner's petition, as (1) the court correctly interpreted section 46-23-506(3)(b); and (2) the petition was not well founded. View "Langford v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent before Judge Lympus. At sentencing, Judge Lympus imposed a forty-year sentence with twenty suspended, as requested by the State pursuant to the plea agreement, and also imposed a ten-year restriction on eligibility for parole among other requirements. Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing (1) his sentence was unfair because the judge used personal feelings against him and did not adequately explain his reasons for imposing the ten-year parole restriction, and (2) his defense counsel was ineffective. The district court dismissed the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court, holding (1) Defendant's challenges the legality of his sentence were procedurally barred; and (2) Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. View "Fletcher v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Tammy Zunski appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment to the Frenchtown Rural Fire Department Board of Trustees (Board) against her right to know and right to participate claims. The issues before the Supreme Court were: (1) whether the District Court correctly determined that the Board's actions at an August 8, 2011, meeting rescinded the actions taken at an improper July 20, 2011, meeting thereby defeating Zunksi's open meeting and public participation claims; and (2) whether the District Court correctly determined that the Board had responded to Zunski's document request in a reasonably timely manner. Zunski admitted that the Board had provided all documents responsive to her right to know request. Because of Zunski's admission, the Supreme Court concluded the district court properly found that no further controversy existed regarding Zunski's right to know claims: "[w]e are left with no reasonable expectation that the Board would fail to comply with any future right to know requests made by Zunski. The District Court correctly resolved Zunski's right to know claims." View "Zunski v. Frenchtown Rural Fire Dep" on Justia Law

Respondent-appellant N.A. was committed to Montana State Hospital for 90 days by a District Court order. N.A. appealed that order. Respondent was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. After some treatment at the Phoenix House, professionals there became concerned that he was a danger to himself and others. The State instituted an involuntary civil commitment proceeding. At his initial appearance, N.A. was informed of his right to a jury trial and the subsequent hearing that would occur, which would include a prehearing mental health evaluation. N.A. did not want evaluation by professionals who had evaluated him in the past because he believed them to be guilty of perjury. N.A. informed the court that he needed more time to find and choose an evaluator. The court gave N.A. a one-day continuance to obtain his chosen professional, but he failed to provide a name to his attorney in time for her to contact the evaluator. When the commitment proceeding resumed, the District Court found that N.A. had been given a reasonable choice of evaluator, and denied the continuance. After the State had finished presenting its case, N.A. moved for a jury trial, which the court rejected as untimely. Upon careful consideration of the District Court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the District Court properly denied N.A.'s motions for continuance and for a jury trial, and his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not supported by sufficient evidence that he was prejudiced by his attorney's actions. View "Matter of N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff John Hartsoe appealed the summary dismissal of his claim against the Honorable Loren Tucker. Hartsoe filed this action alleging that Judge Tucker had violated his constitutional rights by denying his request for a bail hearing, by dismissing one of his civil claims, and for declaring a mistrial in a criminal matter in which he was a Defendant. Judge Tucker appeared in the case and invoked judicial immunity for his actions in the complaint. "At this point, Hartsoe is well versed in our application of judicial immunity, yet he continues to file groundless and burdensome litigation against district court judges for their discharge of official duty. These actions amount to an abuse of our court system," and the Supreme Court imposed a sanction tailored to prevent future harassment with frivolous claims. View "Hartsoe v. Tucker" on Justia Law

Michele Fogarty appealed the outcomes of four criminal misdemeanor cases at the Missoula Municipal Court. The cases were heard in bench trials, all on the same day, all with Fogarty acting pro se. Fogarty appealed her subsequent convictions on grounds that she had been denied her constitutional right to counsel. The District Court affirmed the convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed them too. View "City of Missoula v. Fogarty" on Justia Law

Defendant Jimmie Aker appealed his conviction by jury of sexual intercourse without consent. Defendant appealed the conviction on grounds that the prosecutor committed plain error during closing argument and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Montana v. Aker" on Justia Law

The State appealed a jury verdict that awarded damages to L. Fred Weaver, Joan Weaver and Vicki Weaver. The Weavers had sued the State over negligent fire containment procedures on their real property. The State argued on appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the Weavers' negligence claim; (2) whether the trial court did not allow the State to assert a "public duty doctrine" defense; (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the jury to find the state negligent without expert testimony to establish the standard of care; and (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the State's motion to change venue. Finding no errors or abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Weaver v. DNRC" on Justia Law

Robert Lee Colton Dietsch appealed his conviction for sexual assault of a twelve-year-old girl. Dietsch was seventeen at the time of the alleged assault. The State charged Dietsch as an adult. Dietsch moved to transfer prosecution from the district court to the youth court. The district court denied the motion. Dietsch later entered into a plea agreement whereby he agreed to plead guilt to one count of sexual assault in exchange for the State's agreement to drop a sexual consent without consent charge. Ultimately Dietsch received a deferred sentence of six years and sixty days. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Dietsch argued the district court abused its discretion in refusing to transfer his case to the youth court. The Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence supported the district court's decision. However, the Court concluded the district court erred in its imposition of certain conditions on Dietsch, including setting an indeterminate amount for restitution, and failing to retain jurisdiction over the case until Dietsch reached age 21. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Montana v. Dietsch" on Justia Law