State v. Beam

Citation: 2020 MT 156

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Laurie McKinnon

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court revoking the suspended portion of Defendant's sentence for failing to complete sex offender treatment while in prison, holding that because there was no requirement that Defendant complete sex offender treatment prior to his release on probation the district court lacked the authority to revoke Defendant's sentence. The district court revoked Defendant's sentence after finding that Defendant had not completed sex offender treatment. The court then imposed a six-year Department of Corrections commitment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the treatment condition of Defendant's suspended sentence did not specify when treatment was to be completed, the district court lacked authority to revoke Defendant's sentence and impose a new sentence on the basis that Defendant had refused treatment while in custody.

State v. Stillsmoking

Citation: 2020 MT 154

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Gustafson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the sentencing order and judgment issued by the district court following Defendant's conviction of assault on a peace officer, a felony, holding that Defendant did not use a "weapon" pursuant to Montana law and thus could not be convicted for a violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-210(1)(b). The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of assault on a peace officer, a felony, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-210(1)(b), holding that there was insufficient evidence to convicted Defendant of assault on a peace officer. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State did not present sufficient evidence to convict him because he did not use a weapon during the incident. Rather, Defendant used a "nonfunctioning CO2 pellet gun." The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant, holding that the non-operational BB gun did not qualify as a "weapon" under the facts of this case.

Stalowy v. Flathead Conservation District

Citation: 2020 MT 155

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Beth Baker

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court upholding the declaratory ruling of the Flathead Conservation District asserting jurisdiction over David and Jacqueline Stalowy's dredging project, holding that the district court did not err. The Stalowys applied for permits with the District to conduct dredging activities on their Flathead County property. For the District to have jurisdiction under the Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975 (Act), Title 75, chapter 7, Mont. Code Ann., the proposed dredging work must result in a "change in the state" of a "natural, perennial-flowing stream." At issue was whether North Bear Creek and other waterbodies on the Stalowys' property met the definition of a “stream." The District issued a declaratory ruling asserting jurisdiction over the Stalowys' property and projects. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the District had jurisdiction over the project.

In re Estate of Swanberg

Citation: 2020 MT 153

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Gustafson

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying the petition to reopen Chandler Swanberg's estate filed by Tristan Swanberg and Taylor Swanberg and reversed the district court's decision failing to award attorney fees to Jennifer Wilson for successfully defending the validity and probate of Chandler's will, holding that Wilson was entitled to fees and costs. When Chandler died, Wilson filed a petition for formal probate of will. The court admitted the will to formal probate, appointed Wilson as the personal representative of the estate, and issued an order approving settlement and distribution of the estate according to the terms of the will. The Swanbergs filed a verified petition to reopen Chandler's estate, alleging that Wilson exerted undue influence on Chandler to execute the will and trust, or that Wilson obtained the execution of the will and trust through fraudulent means. The district court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Swanbergs' claims were time-barred. The Swanbergs appealed, and Wilson cross-appealed. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court correctly determined that the Swnbergs' allegations did not toll the timeframe for filing a claim to challenge the probate of Chandler's will; and (2) Wilson was entitled to fees and costs as a matter of law.