Jim Rice

This case involves the dissolution of the marriage of Preston and Jacqueline Bull, who have three minor children, and disputes over the parenting plan and financial provisions in the decree. The District Court found that Preston had engaged in physical and emotional abuse toward Jacqueline and the children, along with heavy drinking, and adopted a parenting plan granting Jackie sole decision-making authority and limiting Preston to supervised visitation. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the parenting provisions, reasoning that they were supported by the abuse findings, the children's diagnoses, and the parenting evaluator's recommendations. However, the Court reversed and remanded the provision requiring equal sharing of extracurricular expenses, holding that such costs must be allocated proportionally to the parties' incomes under the child support guidelines, with appropriate findings on scope and limits.

family law

In State v. Olson, the defendant appealed his conviction for incest involving his young daughter, arguing that the district court violated his constitutional rights to present a defense and confront witnesses by excluding, under Montana's rape shield statute, evidence of pornography found on the victim's brother's phone and alleged inappropriate touching between the siblings as alternative explanations for the child's age-inappropriate sexual knowledge. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that the proffered evidence remained speculative and lacked a sufficient factual foundation connecting it to the alleged abuse, and thus its exclusion under the rape shield law did not arbitrarily or unreasonably infringe on the defendant's rights. The rulings were consistent with precedent requiring a demonstrated nexus before admitting such evidence over the statute's protections.

criminal law

In State v. Horn, the defendant appealed his felony conviction for a fourth or subsequent DUI offense under Montana law after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, challenging the district court's imposition of a mandatory-minimum $5,000 fine under § 61-8-731(1)(a)(iii), MCA (2019), and certain fees. The Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the sentencing court must conduct an ability-to-pay analysis under Article II, Section 22, of the Montana Constitution and § 46-18-231(3), MCA (2019), before imposing the fine, and that the written judgment must conform to the oral pronouncement waiving the fees listed in the PSI. The core reasoning centered on statutory requirements for sentences to fall within legal parameters and the principle that oral pronouncements control over inconsistent written judgments.

criminal law

In Kalafat v. State, the Montana Supreme Court addressed an appeal from a district court order dismissing a petition for judicial review of a six-month driver's license suspension imposed after Erik Kalafat refused a preliminary breath test and blood test during a DUI investigation. The district court had granted the State's motion to dismiss on mootness grounds once the suspension period expired by operation of law and the license was reinstated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the petition was not moot because the applicable statutes authorize a court to determine whether the officer had particularized suspicion to request testing and to remove an invalid suspension and related notations from the driving record, providing concrete relief beyond mere return of the license. The Court reasoned that the plain language of §§ 61-8-1016 and 61-8-1017, MCA, requires an available hearing on these issues and that denying review after reinstatement would undermine the statutory right to judicial review and raise procedural due process concerns.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Daniel Torgison appealing the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction against Lincoln County, its commissioners, and the Lincoln County Port Authority. Torgison alleged that the Port violated open meeting and public participation laws in entering agreements and selling property in the Kootenai Business Park to a private company. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief. The court reasoned that Torgison had not satisfied the required elements for a preliminary injunction, including demonstrating irreparable harm to himself or the public, and that granting the relief would disrupt rather than preserve the status quo given the completed transactions.

procedurecivil rights

In State v. Roope, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of multiple felonies arising from alleged domestic violence against his former wife, including seven counts of partner or family member assault, strangulation, witness tampering, and bail jumping. On appeal, Roope argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by eliciting damaging testimony and that the district court committed plain error by failing to confirm on the record that he knowingly waived his right to testify. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in a memorandum opinion, holding that the ineffective assistance claims could not be resolved on direct appeal because they depended on facts outside the record and were better addressed in postconviction proceedings where counsel could explain the challenged decisions. The court also found no plain or obvious constitutional error regarding the right to testify that would require reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

Felicia Marie Hinkle was convicted after a jury trial of criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. She appealed the district court's denial of her motion to discharge the jury panel without holding a hearing, based on two individuals listed on the panel who had moved out of the county. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err because the jury selection process substantially complied with statutes, the objection raised only a minor and non-prejudicial issue, and the court properly took judicial notice of findings from a prior case addressing the same empaneling procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Richard Haacke’s appeal of his convictions for felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia following a jury trial in Montana district court. The sole issue on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a defense motion to strike prospective juror M.W. for cause after the juror expressed agreement with another venire member’s view that a defendant’s failure to present evidence could indicate guilt. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the juror’s statements did not reveal an unretracted burden-shifting premise or unresolved serious doubt about impartiality sufficient to require excusal under § 46-16-115(2)(j), MCA, and that the trial court’s assessment of the juror’s ability to follow the law was entitled to deference. The ruling emphasized that peremptory challenges exhausted due to the denial did not constitute structural error because the for-cause challenge was properly overruled.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved K.B.'s appeal from the district court's denial of his postconviction relief petition challenging a 2004 dispositional order in a juvenile delinquency proceeding for Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, which imposed a sex offender registration requirement, along with the denial of his motion for a protective order. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings. The court reasoned that the petition was untimely under § 46-21-102, MCA, as it was filed well beyond the one-year limit from the date the conviction became final, that claims regarding the registration requirement could have been raised on direct appeal or in prior proceedings and were thus barred by § 46-21-105(2), MCA, and res judicata, and that the protective order motion was moot after resolution of the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defamation lawsuit brought by Lori Collins, former Executive Director of the Whitefish Housing Authority (WHA), against WHA after statements in a July 2023 Daily Interlake article quoted the interim director describing her actions as unethical, involving malfeasance, and requiring repairs to damage done during her tenure. Following a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for Collins on her defamation claim, admitted the article over hearsay objections, denied WHA's post-trial motion to apply a statutory damages cap, and denied Collins's request for attorney fees based on allegedly bad-faith counterclaims. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the article was properly admitted, the cap issue was not yet ripe for decision, and WHA's counterclaims were not frivolous or in bad faith. The court reasoned that the statements were offered for their effect rather than truth, liability coverage questions remained unresolved, and some evidence supported the counterclaims despite their lack of success.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a post-decree dispute in the dissolution of a marriage between Baylin Douglas Craythorn and Aria Leigh Beitler-Williams. The parties' 2023 divorce decree awarded the marital home to Craythorn after Beitler-Williams transferred her ownership interest, but her name remained on the mortgage; she later filed a motion to enforce the decree by compelling refinancing or sale of the home to remove her from the obligation. The district court initially granted Craythorn attorney fees for responding to that motion after Beitler-Williams failed to reply, but later set aside the fee order upon her motion citing excusable neglect. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the set-aside, holding that the enforcement motion had merit given the ongoing mortgage issue affecting her credit, that fees had not been properly determined, and that the district court's decision fell within its discretion. The court decided the matter by memorandum opinion under its internal rules.

family lawproperty

In T.E.I. v. Knudsen, the Transparent Election Initiative petitioned the Montana Supreme Court to declare that the Attorney General wrongly rejected Ballot Issue 4 (BI-4) as legally insufficient under the state constitution's separate-vote requirement for amendments. BI-4 proposed adding a new Section 8 to Article XIII that would broadly redefine the powers of artificial persons such as corporations, revoke existing powers, and specifically bar them from election or ballot-issue activity. The court denied the petition and affirmed the Attorney General's decision, holding that BI-4 violated Article XIV, Section 11 by combining multiple distinct changes into one measure. This would force voters supporting limits on corporate election spending to also approve broader restrictions on other entities and activities, contrary to precedents like MACo and MNC that prohibit logrolling and ensure voters can separately approve each proposed constitutional amendment.

electionsfree speechbusiness & regulatory

This case involves the dissolution of the marriage between Karen and Craig Steinbeisser after approximately 31 years, focusing on the valuation and distribution of marital assets including Craig's 25% interest in a family ranch partnership. The district court held Craig in contempt and modified the original decree's equalization payment schedule and property allocation, including an account that had been commingled with marital funds. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the district court acted within its equitable authority under Montana law to modify the judgment when conditions justified it and that substantial evidence supported the findings on asset valuation, commingling, and the need for adjustments to accomplish complete justice.

family lawpropertyprocedure

Mark Benton sued his former federal public defender Steven Babcock for professional negligence, claiming Babcock failed to investigate or challenge an allegedly unlawful search and arrest that led to Benton's guilty plea on a federal firearm-possession charge and coerced him into pleading guilty. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Babcock. The court held that collateral estoppel barred the claims because the identical issues of ineffective assistance, the lawfulness of the search and arrest, and the validity of the plea had already been fully litigated and decided against Benton on the merits in his federal § 2255 motion, which produced a final judgment after Benton had a full and fair opportunity to present his arguments.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned the termination of Mother T.C.'s parental rights to her child C.M.B., who was adjudicated a youth in need of care after multiple reports of domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, and neglect in the home, leading to the child's removal and placement in foster care. Mother appealed the district court's order, arguing she had standing to claim ineffective assistance by the child's counsel and that the court failed to properly consider C.M.B.'s mental condition or find that Mother's issues were unlikely to change in a reasonable time. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the termination, holding that Mother lacked standing on the ineffective assistance issue and that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as its detailed findings were supported by substantial evidence including Mother's criminal history, repeated noncompliance with treatment plans, ongoing instability, and the statutory presumption favoring termination after 15 months in care. The court emphasized the child's best interests and emotional well-being under Montana law.

family law

The case involved Jessica Zimmermann's petition for a permanent order of protection against Christopher Wardle, alleging stalking and harassment through daily online and in-person actions, including a false smear site and threats, stemming from a dispute over their competing dog rescue businesses. The district court granted the permanent order after a hearing, finding that Wardle's conduct met the statutory definition of stalking under Montana law and caused Zimmermann substantial fear. Wardle appealed, arguing errors in the district court's findings based on the evidence presented. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that Wardle failed to provide a certified transcript of the hearing, which was required to demonstrate any reversible error under appellate rules, as the lack of a sufficient record prevented review of his claims.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Lowry, the defendant was convicted by a jury of accountability for aggravated assault after an attack on another inmate at the Lewis and Clark County Detention Center. Lowry appealed, arguing that the prosecutor's statements during closing argument constituted plain error and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the challenged statements did not meet the plain error standard for reversal and that any deficiencies in counsel's performance did not affect the trial's outcome. The court also rejected the IAC claim related to the defendant's brief appearance in handcuffs before potential jurors, citing settled precedent that such momentary exposure does not warrant a mistrial absent prejudice.

criminal law

In State v. Pierce, the Montana Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of Dillon Pierce for sexual intercourse without consent following a jury trial in which the State alleged he engaged in sex with K.R. while she was intoxicated and unable to consent. Pierce challenged the district court's jury instruction defining the mental state of "knowingly" as awareness of a high probability of incapacity, as well as its exclusion of expert testimony on K.R.'s prior alcohol use. The court held that the instruction improperly reduced the prosecution's burden of proof and reversed the conviction, remanding for a new trial. The decision focused on the prejudicial effect of the erroneous instruction on the jury's assessment of Pierce's awareness of consent issues.

criminal law

In State v. Carlson, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence under Montana law for destroying her ex-boyfriend's phone during a physical altercation, following an incident where he attempted to record her. Carlson appealed the District Court's denial of her request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of criminal destruction of or tampering with a communication device. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the lesser offense is not included as a matter of law because tampering requires proof that the defendant believed an official proceeding or investigation was pending or imminent, an element absent from the communication device statute. The majority reasoned that the facts did not satisfy the legal test for a lesser included offense instruction under the applicable standards.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Eric Ramirez's appeal from his jury convictions in Montana state court for criminal possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and methamphetamine, arising from a controlled delivery of drugs, surveillance, and a search of an Airbnb where he was staying. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the convictions and the district court's denial of two proposed jury instructions. The court reasoned that the evidence supported the convictions, that a "mere presence" instruction was unnecessary given the proof of Ramirez's connection to the drugs and related items, and that a witness accountability instruction was unwarranted because the cooperating witness was not shown to be an accomplice to the specific charged conduct and Ramirez's defense asserted complete innocence.

criminal lawprocedure