Archive | 5-0

RSS feed for this section

Wheaton v. Bradford

Wheaton v. Bradford, 2013 MT 121 (May 7, 2013) (5-0) (Rice, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether Bradford’s expert was properly allowed; (2) whether Bradford’s expert failed to supplement his disclosure; (3) whether the motion for a new trial should have been granted.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) no; and (3) no.

Affirmed

In re the Marriage of Steab and Luna

In re the Marriage of Steab and Luna, 2013 MT 124 (May 7, 2013) (5-0) (Cotter, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court was required to issue written findings and conclusions to support its order on child support arrearages; (2) whether the district court erred in imposing a 12% annual interest rate on unpaid arrearages; (3) whether the district court erred in not imposing interest on Staeb’s unpaid arrearages, only Luna’s; and (4) whether the district court erred in taking judicial notice of a bankruptcy court order releasing Staeb from marital debt owed to Luna.

Short Answer: (1) No, as it was presented via a motion; (2) yes, as the statutory rate is 10%; (3) yes; and (4) no.…

State v. Kelm

State v. Kelm, 2013 MT 115 (April 30, 2013) (5-0) (Baker, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly suppressed all evidence gathered after Kelm’s arrest because the arresting officer did not comply with § 46-6-312, MCA; (2) whether the district court properly suppressed all evidence obtained after Kelm’s arrest because the officer failed to advise Kelm of her Miranda rights; (3) whether the district court properly suppressed evidence seized from Kelm’s vehicle.

Short Answer: (1) No, as the failure to comply did not affect Kelm’s substantial rights; (2) no, as Miranda protects only self-incriminating statements made while in custodial interrogation; and (3) no, as the officer was lawfully present in Kelm’s vehicle when he returned to turn her lights off.…

Ecton v. Ecton

Ecton v. Ecton, 2013 MT 114 (April 30, 2013) (5-0) (Cotter, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in interpreting Zales Ecton, Jr.’s will requiring IRC § 2032A property to be distributed as part of the residuary estate as requiring a specific devise rather than a devise to the residuary beneficiaries; and (2) whether the district court erred in allowing Zales III to object to the PR’s decision to award the income from the IRC § 2032A property to residuary beneficiaries more than 30 days after the proposed distribution was submitted for approval.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) no.

Affirmed

State v. Baker

State v. Baker, 2013 MT 113 (April 30, 2013) (5-0) (McGrath, C.J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in admitting into evidence a recorded interview with the victim; (2) whether sufficient evidence supported the conviction; (3) whether the district court erred in denying Baker’s motion for a new trial; and (4) whether’s Baker’s attorney provided ineffective assistance at trial.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) yes; (3) no; and (4) the Court declines to address this issue.

Affirmed

In the Matter of DSB and DSB

In the Matter of DSB and DSB, 2013 MT 112 (April 30, 2013) (5-0) (McGrath, C.J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly concluded that birth father JH’s treatment plans were appropriate, and (2) whether the state presented sufficient evidence to terminate JH’s parental rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes.

Affirmed