Background
Michael Arthur Smith was charged in three cases arising from separate incidents in September 2022, November 2022, and January 2023 involving alleged assaults against the same partner. The State charged Smith with multiple counts of felony partner or family member assault and violations of no-contact orders. The District Court consolidated the cases for trial, reasoning that the charges involved similar conduct, the same victim, nearby hotels, and a relatively short period of time.
A jury convicted Smith of three PFMA counts and two no-contact-order violations while acquitting him of a fourth PFMA count. The District Court imposed consecutive five-year sentences for the felony PFMA convictions, suspended five years, and credited time served on the no-contact-order convictions. Smith appealed, challenging both consolidation and his treatment as a felony PFMA offender based on two prior qualifying convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the consolidation order. Smith had objected below that consolidation came too close to trial, but he did not argue that the State had waived consolidation under Montana’s omnibus-hearing statute or lacked good cause for relief from waiver. Because that statutory theory was not preserved, the Court declined to consider it. The District Court did not otherwise abuse its discretion because the offenses were sufficiently similar and connected, and consolidation served judicial economy without demonstrated undue prejudice.
The Court also held that Smith was lawfully sentenced for felony PFMA. Although the presentence investigation report expressly identified only one prior PFMA conviction, the prosecutor supplied detailed, undisputed information at sentencing identifying two prior qualifying convictions by court, cause number, conviction date, and judgment conditions. Smith had opportunities to review and correct the information but never disputed either conviction. On those narrow facts, the District Court could rely on the State’s presentation, and the State met its burden to establish the two prior convictions.
Key Takeaways
- A general timing objection does not preserve a distinct statutory argument that a party waived a motion by failing to raise it before an omnibus deadline.
- Charges involving the same victim, similar conduct, nearby locations, and a short time span may be consolidated when judicial economy and fairness favor a joint trial.
- Detailed and undisputed prior-conviction information presented at sentencing may establish qualifying convictions even when the PSI does not clearly record each disposition.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the need for defense counsel to state the specific legal basis for an objection in the trial court. It also confirms that defendants must timely dispute allegedly inaccurate sentencing information to trigger a requirement for additional proof.
The memorandum opinion is noncitable and does not serve as precedent under the Montana Supreme Court’s Internal Operating Rules.