Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's pro se motion to vacate and challenge to jurisdiction and the subsequent order of revocation and imposition of sentence revoking Defendant's previous sentence and sentencing him for failure to register as a sexual offender, holding that the State's delay in bringing Defendant to Montana to appear before a judge in his revocation proceeding violated his right to due process.Defendant pled guilty to failure to register as a sexual offender and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which was suspended. The State later filed a petition for revocation of sentence, alleging that Defendant violated the terms of his probation and absconded from supervision. Defendant was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury for failing to register as a sex offender after traveling from Montana to New York. Defendant's federal charge was later dismissed, and Defendant personally appeared in the district court. The court then revoked Defendant's prior sentence and imposed a sentence of almost three years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State violated Defendant's right to due process by failing to bring him before a judge to answer his revocation proceedings for nearly two years. View "State v. Cameron" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order and judgment issued by the district court following Defendant's convictions for sexual assault, three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, and sexual abuse of children, holding that the district court erred by misapplying Montana's rape shield statute, Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-511(2), and violated Defendant's constitutional confrontation rights.After the State charged Defendant with sexually assaulting I.A., a female minor, law enforcement received a tip that Cody Hill and I.A. were involved in an inappropriate sexual relationship. The State subsequently charged Hill was sexually abusing I.A. Defendant sought a motion to compel seeking confidential criminal justice information from the criminal file regarding Hill. The district court denied Defendant's motion to compel and convicted Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by not requiring the State to provide additional confidential criminal justice information from the Hill investigation; but (2) erred by misapplying the rape shield statute and violated Defendant's constitutional right to confront his accuser and present evidence in his defense by disallowing evidence that Hill abused I.A. in an identical manner less than two weeks before the incident at issue in this case. View "State v. Twardoski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and commitment of the district court following Defendant's felony convictions of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault, holding that the district court did not commit reversible error by answering a question posed by the jury without consulting the parties.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the Court should exercise plain error review regarding his claims about expert testimony undermining his presumption of innocence; and (3) the district court erred by answering a jury question during deliberation without consulting the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court declines to consider Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal; (2) this Court declines to exercise plain error review regarding Defendant's claims about expert witness testimony; and (3) the district court did not commit reversible error by answering the jury's question without consulting the parties. View "State v. Sinz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming Defendant's jury conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, holding that Defendant was denied his confrontation rights.On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence stemming from the stop of the vehicle and argued that the justice court improperly allowed a State witness to appear by two-way video at trial. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the trooper lawfully stopped and detained Defendant; and (2) reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that the justice court violated Defendant's right to confrontation when it allowed Defendant to testify via two-way video. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress his text message conversation with an undercover federal agent and to dismiss the charge of patronizing prostitution, holding that the district court did not err.From his cell phone, Defendant responded to an ad placed in a warrantless internet sting operation. Thereafter, Defendant engaged in a text message conversation with "Lily," an undercover law enforcement officer. Defendant was subsequently charged with patronizing prostitution, a misdemeanor. Defendant filed a motion to suppress his text conversation with "Lily" and for dismissal of the case due to a lack of evidence. The district court denied the motions, and Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the warrantless use of a cloaked law enforcement officer under a fake internet advertisement for sexual services and the responsive text message conversation did not intrude upon an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore did not effect a constitutional search in violation of Defendant's right to privacy under Mont. Const. art. II, 10-11. View "State v. Staker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of the sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl and upheld the constitutionality of his sentence requiring lifetime GPS monitoring, holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred to the extent it admitted the victim's taped forensic interview as a prior consistent statement, but there was not a reasonable possibility that the forensic interview contributed to Defendant's conviction; (2) Defendant did not sustain his burden to demonstrate that the prosecutor's closing arguments justified reversal of his conviction for plain error; and (3) the requirement for GPS monitoring imposed by Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(4)(b) is not facially unconstitutional under either the Montana or the United States Constitutions. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's conviction, entered after a second trial, for sexual intercourse without consent and bail jumping, holding that the district court abused its discretion in declaring and mistrial and erred in concluding that double jeopardy did not bar Defendant's retrial.Defendant was originally charged with incest and a jury was impaneled. Nearing the conclusion of the State's case the court reporter had either a heart attack or a stroke and was taken to the hospital. The court declared a mistrial, and a retrial was scheduled. Before the second trial, the State amended its charge to correct a deficiency in the original charging documents. Defendant was subsequently convicted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant's subsequent prosecution for sexual intercourse without consent and bail jumping for the same incident as his first prosecution was barred by the United States and Montana Constitutions protections against double jeopardy; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial. View "State v. Newrobe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony theft by possession of stolen property and four misdemeanor, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court acted within its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for mistrial after two separate references to Defendant's "jail" status were made by State witnesses; (2) the district court did not err in declining to give a jury instruction on unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as a lesser-included offense of the charged theft by possession of stolen property; and (3) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims would more appropriately be addressed through a petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. Denny" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for three felony counts of privacy in communications, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213(1)(a), holding that there were no prejudicial errors in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the Privacy in Communications statute, Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213(1)(a), is not facially overbroad, nor does it constitute a content-based restriction on speech in violation of the "freedom of speech" clauses of the Montana and United States Constitutions; (2) the district court correctly interpreted the Privacy in Communications statute; (3) there was insufficient evidence to conclude that there was jurisdiction when the threatening communication was made to a person located outside of Montana; and (4) the district court fully and fairly instructed the jury in accordance with the charges and evidence presented. View "State v. Lamoureux" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for sexual intercourse without consent (SIWOC) and his sentence of seventy-five years' imprisonment, with twenty-five years suspended, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the district court erred by allowing the presentation of combined expert and lay testimony without providing a cautionary instruction or notice to counsel, (2) the court violated his due process rights by failing to exclude the prosecutor from a hearing regarding defense counsel's representation; and (3) his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) plain error review was not warranted for either issue one or issue two; and (2) Defendant failed to establish his ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law