Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief, holding that the district court correctly denied the postconviction relief petition.After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of theft by common scheme for embezzling a sizable amount of money from a youth softball organization. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later brought this postconviction petition alleging, among other claims, ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate deficiency in his appellate counsel's representation and that his remaining complaints were unsuitable grounds for postconviction relief. View "Crabtree v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress and remanded this case to the district court to vacate Defendant's conviction of criminal possession of dangerous drugs and use or possession of property subject to criminal forfeiture, holding the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.In his motion to suppress, Defendant claimed that law enforcement exceeded the scope of a lawful traffic stop by asking Defendant for his license and then questioning him behind the vehicle after learning that the license was valid. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the officer lawfully escalated his investigation from a traffic stop to an investigation of other criminal activity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officer did not possess the requisite particularized suspicion to expand the scope of the traffic stop into a criminal investigation. View "State v. Carrywater" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court in this criminal case, holding that the district court adequately considered evidence of Defendant's post-offense rehabilitation under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and imposed a constitutional sentence by striking a parole restriction.When he was seventeen years old, Defendant was charged with burglary and three counts of deliberate homicide. Defendant was convicted of all counts and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences without parole. Defendant later filed a successful postconviction petition seeking resentencing under Miller. After a resentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to three consecutive life terms at MSP without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court remanded the case. On remand, the district court resentenced him to three life sentences and did not restrict Defendant's eligibility for parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court complied with the Court's instructions on remand in Keefe II and imposed a legal sentence. View "Keefe v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for partner or family members assault (PFMA), unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and two counts of tampering with witnesses or informants but reversed the district court's imposition of various fees and costs on Defendant, holding that remand was required for an analysis of Defendant's ability to pay before imposing costs and fees.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the admission of certain hearsay statements was not harmless error; (2) Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was not violated; (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his argument that his right to confrontation was violated by the repeated emphasis on recorded jail phone calls; (4) the record was insufficient to review Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (5) the district court erred in imposing jury and other costs on Defendant without first undertaking an ability to pay inquiry. View "State v. Oliver" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for felony driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI), holding that there was no harmless error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not violate Defendant's right to equal protection by denying his Batson objection to the State's peremptory strike of the only racial minority member of the venire; (2) while one of the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument was erroneous, the prosecutor's remarks, considered cumulatively, did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial; and (3) the district court did not err when it relied on one of Defendant's prior convictions to support enhancement of his DUI conviction to a felony offense and in determining that the prior conviction was constitutionally valid. View "State v. Wellknown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs and misdemeanor criminal possession of drug paraphernalia, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized after a vehicle search that resulted from an unlawfully prolonged investigative driving under the influence (DUI) stop. The district court denied the motion to suppress on the ground that the initial stop of Defendant was lawful based on a reasonable particularized suspicion of DUI. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) while Defendant was lawfully stopped on a reasonable particularized suspicion of DUI, the officers unlawfully prolonged the duration of the stop before subjecting Defendant to the confirmatory DUI field sobriety testing; and (2) therefore, the district court erroneously denied Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Zeimer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of assault with a weapon, a felony, and misdemeanor possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia and sentencing him to a nine-year prison term, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the State's peremptory strike of the only non-white member of the jury venire was not plain error under the three-prong equal protection analysis set forth by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); (2) Defendant failed to establish plain error as to his arguments regarding various unpreserved assertions of error regarding the prosecutor’s closing argument and rebuttal comments; and (3) defense counsel's withdrawal of the Batson challenge and failure to object to certain statements by the prosecutor did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a blood draw conducted pursuant to a search warrant, holding that there was no error.Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from a blood draw, arguing that Wheatland County Justice of the Peace Richard Egabakken lacked jurisdiction to issue the warrant because the crimes occurred in Golden Valley County. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it concluded that Justice of the Peace Egebakken had jurisdiction to issue a search warrant for Defendant's blood draw in Wheatland County. View "State v. Grussing" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court affirming the justice court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that particularized suspicion did not exist to support extending Defendant's traffic stop into a drug investigation.Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of drug paraphernalia and criminal possession of marijuana. On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the State's evidence as the product of an illegal extension of the stop, arguing that the police officer lacked particularized suspicion to justify extending the traffic stop and ordering a canine sniff search. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the justice court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Harning" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of warrantless search of his apartment, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.In this case, three probation officers and a deputy federal marshal made a warrantless entry into Defendant's apartment without his consent to investigate his reported methamphetamine use and possible drug overdose in violation of the law and Defendant's probation. The district court concluded that the warrantless entry into Defendant's apartment was a constitutional search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded that the warrantless entry and probation search of Defendant's apartment was lawful on reasonable suspicion under the probation search exception to the warrant requirement of Mont. Const. art. II, 10-11; and (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress based on the manner in which the officers entered the apartment or treated Defendant thereafter. View "State v. Peoples" on Justia Law