Moses Ouma Okeyo's Legal Cases (2)

Civil rights

In re R.H., 2016 MT 329

Dec 13, 2016

OUTCOME: Affirmed in Part And Reversed In Part

This is an appeal from a basic-needs commitment and authorization of involuntary medication. R.H. is elderly and has various physical health problems. She also suffers from bipolar and anxiety disord ... ers, for which she takes medications. After R.H. was evicted from her senior living facility due to altercations with other residents, she was at risk of being homeless and made a suicidal comment. The mental health evaluator opined that R.H. was unable to care for herself. R.H. was unable to secure other housing either because no one would take her or because of her own uncooperativeness. R.H. argued her inability to find shelter was not because of her mental illness (as required for DI commitment). The Court, however, affirmed the district court’s finding that R.H.’s bipolar condition and disorganized thinking were making her unable to provide for her own basic needs. More interestingly, the Court reversed the district court’s order authorizing involuntary medication. The mental health evaluator testified that “we usually do recommend [involuntary medication], and I would in this case, too.” However, the evaluator also testified that R.H. had no history of refusing meds. The district court found that involuntary medication “may be necessary to facilitate treatment” because R.H.’s mental disorder could cause her to abruptly decide not to take her medication. The Court agreed with the district court’s finding that involuntary medication “may be necessary” in the future, but statutorily to order involuntary medication a district court must find that involuntary medication “is necessary.” The Court reversed the order authorizing involuntary medication here because “is necessary” is not satisfied by a finding of “may be necessary.” The Court reiterated that the evidence here was the R.H. had been taking her meds.

Criminal defense

State v. Krebs, 2016 MT 288

Nov 15, 2016

OUTCOME: Remanded and Reversed

The State charged Krebs with felony DUI, alleging three prior DUIs, including a 1988 conviction from North Dakota. Because of the then-applicable DUI statutes in North Dakota and the destruction of co ... urt records, in was impossible to say whether the 1988 conviction was for a BAC DUI or an under the influence DUI. The distinction mattered here because if the 1988 conviction was a BAC DUI, then it was expunged for Montana purposes after five years. Based on this uncertainty, Krebs challenged whether the State could prove that the 1988 conviction had not been expunged and still existed as a qualifying prior DUI conviction. Relying on Maine, 2011 MT 90 (a collateral attack case), the district court ruled that Krebs had the burden to prove that the 1988 conviction had been expunged. The Court held that the district court’s (and State’s) reliance upon Maine was misplaced. In Maine the Court said that when a defendant is attacking a prior conviction as constitutionally infirm, the burden is on the defendant to affirmatively prove the conviction’s invalidity. But here Krebs admitted he was validly convicted in 1988. He was not making a collateral constitutional attack on the 1988 conviction; rather he was asserting that the State has the burden of proving that the 1988 conviction still exists and qualifies as a predicate for enhancing his present DUI to a felony. The Court agreed with Krebs and held unequivocally that it is the State’s burden to prove the fact of a prior conviction. Because it was undisputed here that no records existed to establish whether the 1988 conviction was a qualifying under the influence DUI versus an expunged BAC DUI, the State failed its burden. The Court, thus, reversed Krebs’s felony conviction. (Krebs had argued in the alternative that if the 1988 conviction was an under the influence DUI (and, thus, not expunged), then it was not sufficiently similar to Montana’s DUI offense to count because North Dakota had interpreted its under the influence standard as requiring less than Montana’s. Because it reversed on the State’s failure to prove the conviction was not expunged, the Court did not reach the sufficiently similar claim.)

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained