Diane G. Barz

In State v. Evans, the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary, two counts of felony assault, and felony theft after breaking into a neighbor's home, using a stun gun to attack her, firing a shot, and stealing items including her phone records; he appealed on multiple grounds including whether a stun gun qualified as a weapon, alleged errors in jury instructions and evidence handling, double jeopardy, expert testimony on handwriting, sentencing conditions, and witness sequestration. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the stun gun met the statutory definition of a weapon for the charged offenses, the district court did not err in its evidentiary or instructional rulings, double jeopardy did not apply because the offenses involved distinct elements, the sexual offender treatment condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation given the obsessive and sexual nature of the assault, and other claims lacked merit. The court reasoned that the evidence supported the jury's findings and that sentencing complied with Montana statutes allowing conditions tied to rehabilitation and public protection.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Sor-Lokken, the defendant was convicted in Montana district court of felony sexual assault and incest involving his 15-year-old stepdaughter and sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years (with five suspended) and ten years, plus designation as a dangerous offender. He appealed on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction for the arrest warrant, inadequate probable cause determination, failure to arraign on the amended information, prosecutorial interference with witness interviews, denial of habeas corpus, double jeopardy violations, juror misconduct, excessive bail, and improper reliance on prior convictions. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err on any of the procedural or substantive claims and that the prior convictions were properly considered at sentencing.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between two insurance companies over coverage for a fire that destroyed a residence in Montana. Farm Bureau had issued a policy to the property owner, while Credit General had issued a policy to the bank holding a security interest in the property; after Farm Bureau paid the policy limit to the bank, it sought contribution from Credit General. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to Credit General, ruling that Farm Bureau's policy provided primary coverage and Credit General's provided only excess coverage. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when one policy contains a pro-rata "other insurance" clause and the other an excess clause, the excess clause controls, making the pro-rata policy primary and precluding contribution. The court adopted the majority rule on such clause conflicts, finding it consistent with prior Montana precedent.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Van Pelt, the defendant was charged and convicted by a jury in Montana district court of two counts of incest, one count of sexual assault, and one count of attempted sexual intercourse without consent against his nine-year-old stepdaughter. On appeal, Van Pelt argued that the district court erred by denying his request to subpoena an out-of-state witness and by granting the state's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the victim's prior sexual abuse under Montana statute § 45-5-511(4). The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the proposed witness was not material because she could not establish lack of opportunity for the crimes, and that evidence of prior sexual abuse was inadmissible because it was not shown to be false and was irrelevant to the victim's knowledge of sexual activity. The court further held that excluding such evidence did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under the state or federal constitutions.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

Edsall Construction, a Montana company, sued Larry and Kristen Robinson, Utah residents operating Imperial Tile, for $15,114 in damages arising from an alleged breach of an oral sub-bid contract for tile work on a federal project in Utah. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, found a contract existed, and awarded damages after a bench trial. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that Montana lacked personal jurisdiction under Rule 4B of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure because the defendants had insufficient minimum contacts with the state, the contract was to be performed entirely in Utah, and the bidding and project occurred in Utah. The court emphasized that the telephone communications alone did not establish the requisite purposeful availment of Montana's laws.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a breach of contract dispute between Trad Industries, a Canadian corporation, and Welch Brogan, a Montana game farm operator, over two written agreements for the sale of 82 elk with specified cut-off dates in 1987 and deposits paid by Trad. Brogan appealed the district court's judgment awarding damages to Trad, raising issues including the parol evidence rule, enforcement of an oral agreement extending delivery dates, sufficiency of evidence, and the scope of damages; Trad cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings, holding that testimony supported an oral extension of the contracts, that substantial credible evidence backed the findings, that damages for all contracted elk were proper, and that no exemplary or tort damages applied because this was a standard commercial contract for goods governed by the UCC without a special relationship warranting bad faith tort claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liability