Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and two counts of felony assault with a weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported Appellant’s convictions for felony assault with a weapon; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting a justifiable use of force defense to the felony assault with a gun charge; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to present rebuttal evidence to impeach defense witness testimony; and (4) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. View "State v. Redlich" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with aggravated assault against his wife and criminal endangerment. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal endangerment and the lesser offense of assault. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) criminal endangerment is a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault, and charging both crimes is prohibited by statute, and (2) his counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to invoke Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-225, which requires a sentencing court to evaluate specific criteria when assessing imprisonment alternatives for non-violent offenders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not simultaneously convicted on a lesser and greater offense; and (2) Defendant suffered no prejudice from his counsel’s conduct at sentencing. View "Zink v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony theft by insurance fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that an insurance administrator is a person who adjusts or settles claims; (2) the Court declines to exercise plain error review of the State’s remarks during closing argument; (3) the district court did not err by ordering Defendant to pay restitution when the affidavit of loss was prepared by an independent adjuster; and (4) Defendant’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised in a postconviction proceeding before a district court, where an evidentiary record may be developed. View "State v. Schaeffer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony incest involving his fourteen-year-old son and six-year-old daughter and of tampering with the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later petition for postconviction relief, setting forth three grounds upon which he claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief, concluding that even if Defendant’s representation was deficient, it would not have created a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been any different. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that even if counsel’s conduct was constitutionally deficient, Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced. View "Stock v. Montana" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of sexual assault, a felony, and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument regarding the truthfulness of witness testimony did not rise to the level of plain error; and (2) the district court did not deny abuse its discretion when it determined that a new trial was not warranted in the interest of justice after the court sua sponte questioned a key defense witness, as the inquiry did not serve to deny Defendant a fair trial. View "State v. Walton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of accountability to burglary and theft. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence for accountability to burglary and reversed Defendant’s conviction for theft, holding (1) the district court did not err by instructing the jury on the theory of accountability when the State had not directly charged an accountability based offense, as the circumstances surrounding the trial put Defendant on notice that the State would pursue an accountability theory; (2) defense counsel’s submission of a jury instruction defining “purposely” in Montana’s accountability statute as a conduct-based rather than result-based mental state resulted in no prejudice to Defendant’s position at trial; and (3) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to Defendant’s theft conviction on the grounds that it violated Montana’s statutory restriction on multiple charges. View "State v. Tellegen" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of felony assault with a weapon. The district court sentenced Defendant to a ten-year term commitment to the Department of Corrections (DOC) with five years suspended. After Defendant’s probation officer filed a report of violation, a petition for revocation was filed in district court. Following a hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to a five-year commitment to DOC with recommended placement at a prerelease facility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition for revocation; and (2) the district court did not violate Defendant’s due process rights by considering the criminal history information in the presentencing investigation report, nor did it abuse its discretion by requiring Defendant to serve the remainder of his original sentence. View "State v. Edmundson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to felony theft pursuant to a plea agreement. Although both parties recommended that the district court follow the plea agreement in sentencing Defendant, the district court rejected the plea agreement and sentenced Defendant to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for ten years, with five years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court committed plain error and violated his due process rights by rejecting the plea agreement and failing to afford him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it rejected the plea agreement’s sentencing recommendation without giving Defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea; and (2) Defendant’s trial attorney did not provide ineffective assistance. View "State v. Olson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this action to challenge a decision by county commissioners (the Commissioners) to permit elected county officials to receive cash payments in lieu of county contributions on their behalf to a group health insurance program. Plaintiff claimed the Commissioners violated Montana’s open meetings statute and his constitutional right of participation, requested a declaration that the “cash in lieu” policy was unlawful, and filed a writ for mandamus that the county attorney commence an action to recover any illegal payments. The district court (1) dismissed Plaintiff’s right to know and right of participation claims as time barred; (2) dismissed Plaintiff’s declaratory claim for lack of standing; and (3) dismissed the mandamus claim, determining that mandamus did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff had standing to pursue his right to know and right of participation claims; and (2) Plaintiff’s right to know and right of participation claims were time barred, but Plaintiff’s allegations qualified for application of equitable tolling principles. Remanded. View "Schoof v. Nesbit" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to forgery and issuing bad checks and received a deferred sentence. Defendant subsequently violated the conditions of his supervision. The district court imposed two consecutive commitments to the Department of Corrections, with all time suspended. The district court subsequently found that Defendant violated the terms of his probation and revoked Defendant’s suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) neither the relevant statutes nor due process require the State to produce independent evidence corroborating an offender’s admission of a violation of the conditions of his or her supervision; and (2) the district court did not violate Defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses during the revocation hearing. View "State v. Macker" on Justia Law