Paralegal Mark Anthony Given has spent four years hand collecting every winning criminal case in the history of the Montana Supreme Court. A Montana Criminal Defense Attorney can find here in 15 minutes what would take days or even weeks to locate. This is a sample of the over 1,000 available winning cases, the rest will be available soon via pay site.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Odor of alchohol not probable cause

2004 MT 45
STATE OF MONTANA, v.
CHERI LARKIN MAY,
The dispositive issue is whether the District Court erred when it denied May's motion
to suppress evidence and statements obtained as a result of an illegal arrest.
We hold that the odor of alcohol emanating from May's person, standing alone, was insufficient to establish probable cause for her arrest by private citizens.
¶20 Because we have concluded the prosecution did not establish probable cause for the airmen's detention of May, which constituted an arrest, we hold that her arrest was illegal. As a result, all evidence obtained as a result of the arrest must be suppressed. See State v. New (1996), 276 Mont. 529, 535, 917 P.2d 919, 922-23.

right to petition the courts for re-designation;

2007 MT 288
STATE OF MONTANA, v.
DAVID BULLMAN,
Did the District Court err when it failed to consider Bullman’s petition for re-designation based on the statutory language of § 46-23-509(4), MCA (2005)?
We conclude only that Bullman has the right to petition the courts for re-designation; the District Court must determine whether Bullman qualifies for re-designation.

ex post facto error

2007 MT 257
STATE OF MONTANA,v.
PAUL JAY SOUTHWICK,
Does the doctrine of res judicata bar this Court’s consideration of the merits of Southwick’s claim that the District Court imposed an illegal sentence?
2. Does Southwick’s failure to object to his sentences at either of his original sentencing hearings, or at the time the District Court revoked his suspended commitments, preclude review of his sentences?
3. Do the sentences imposed exceed the District Court’s statutory authority?
Because § 46-18-201(3)(d)(i), MCA (1999), is more burdensome that the 1997 version of the statute in effect at the time of the offenses, its application to Southwick violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws. Suiste, 261 Mont. at 253, 862 P.2d at 401.
We conclude, therefore, that Southwick’s sentence is facially illegal.

Unable to pay fines but able to pay attorney fees?

2007 MT 238
STATE OF MONTANA,v.
JACOB RALPH STARR,
Did the District Court err in finding Starr unable to pay a fine, and then sentencing him to pay his court-appointed attorney’s fees?
The District Court’s sentence requiring Starr to pay the costs for his assigned counsel goes against the weight of its evidentiary findings, and is illegal because it does not meet the requirements of § 46-8-113(3), MCA. We reverse and remand with instructions to strike the portion of the sentence concerning the attorney’s fees.

erred in failing to specify amount of restitution

2007 MT 230
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GILBERT BRUCE MEYERS,
Did Meyers’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to or seek exclusion of testimony regarding alleged prior bad acts?
(2) Did the District Court impose an illegal sentence by:
a. Restricting Meyers’s ability to reside in Broadwater County?
b. Requiring Meyers to pay restitution “in an amount to remain open” until the victims receive any help they need?
The District Court erred by failing to specify the total amount of restitution Meyers must pay to the victims

Illegal "Assesments" at sentencing

The District Court erred in sentencing Krum to pay “assessments” of $5,000 to the Park County Court Automation Fund, $2,500 to the Tri-County Network for Domestic Violence, and $2,500 to Park County Big Brothers and Sisters. These assessments were made without statutory authority, and as such, are illegal. Thus, we reverse and remand with instructions to strike the illegal portion of the sentence.

Miranda violation

2007 MT 222
STATE OF MONTANA, v.
JULIA MUNSON,
1. motion to suppress statements she made to law enforcement officers?
2. Did the District Court err in denying Munson’s motion to suppress evidence
Because Munson was interrogated in a custodial atmosphere, she was entitled to the Miranda warnings. The Officers’ failure to preface their questions with those warnings renders Munson’s statements inadmissible, and the District Court therefore erred when it denied Munson’s motion to suppress those statements.
Furthermore, because Munson’s consent to search was not given freely and voluntarily and without duress or coercion, all evidence seized by the Officers under the guise of that consent is inadmissible, and the District Court therefore erred when it denied Munson’s motion to suppress that evidence.

Shackles in the Courtroom violates Due Process

2008 MT 143
STATE OF MONTANA, v.
JOHN MICHAEL MERRILL,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Did the District Court abuse its discretion in violation of Merrill’s right to due process of law by granting a request from a law enforcement officer to restrain Merrill with leg shackles during his jury trial?
We hold that the District Court abused its discretion in violation of Merrill’s right to due process of law by granting a request from a law enforcement officer to restrain Merrill with leg shackles during his jury trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.