structural error in Montana

2025State v. Good, 2002 MT 59, ¶ 62 , 309 Mont. 113 , 43 P.3d 948 .

2025State v. Good, 2002 MT 59, ¶ 62 , 309 Mont. 113 , 43 P.3d 948 .

2009Van Kirk , ¶¶ 38-39 (citing State v. LaMere, 2000 MT 45 , 298 Mont. 358 , 2 P.3d 204 (errors in the jury selection process are structural errors); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S. Ct. 792 (1963) (total deprivation of the right to counsel is a structural error); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S. Ct. 437 (1927) (lack of an impartial trial judge is a structural error)).

2009Van Kirk , ¶¶ 38-39 (citing State v. LaMere, 2000 MT 45 , 298 Mont. 358 , 2 P.3d 204 (errors in the jury selection process are structural errors); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S. Ct. 792 (1963) (total deprivation of the right to counsel is a structural error); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S. Ct. 437 (1927) (lack of an impartial trial judge is a structural error)).

2018In State v. Matt , 2008 MT 444 , ¶ 43, 347 Mont. 530 , 199 P.3d 244 (overruled in part by Charlie ), we held the defendant's right of presence had been violated at a critical stage of the proceedings when he was excluded from an in-chambers conference at the close of the State's case-in-chief, but further held this violation was not a structural error because the resultant rulings did not "contaminate[ ] the trial mechanism along the lines that a biased judge, lack of counsel, an erroneous reasonable-doubt instruction, or a jury-selection error would." Similarly here, although the conferences

2018In State v. Matt , 2008 MT 444 , ¶ 43, 347 Mont. 530 , 199 P.3d 244 (overruled in part by Charlie ), we held the defendant's right of presence had been violated at a critical stage of the proceedings when he was excluded from an in-chambers conference at the close of the State's case-in-chief, but further held this violation was not a structural error because the resultant rulings did not "contaminate[ ] the trial mechanism along the lines that a biased judge, lack of counsel, an erroneous reasonable-doubt instruction, or a jury-selection error would." Similarly here, although the conferences

2009Van Kirk , ¶¶ 38-39 (citing State v. LaMere, 2000 MT 45 , 298 Mont. 358 , 2 P.3d 204 (errors in the jury selection process are structural errors); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S. Ct. 792 (1963) (total deprivation of the right to counsel is a structural error); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S. Ct. 437 (1927) (lack of an impartial trial judge is a structural error)).

2009Van Kirk , ¶¶ 38-39 (citing State v. LaMere, 2000 MT 45 , 298 Mont. 358 , 2 P.3d 204 (errors in the jury selection process are structural errors); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S. Ct. 792 (1963) (total deprivation of the right to counsel is a structural error); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S. Ct. 437 (1927) (lack of an impartial trial judge is a structural error)).

2023State v. Russell, 2018 MT 26, ¶ 10 , 390 Mont. 253 , 411 P.3d 1260 (citation omitted). ¶14 We review criminal sentences de novo to determine whether the district court’s interpretation of the law is correct.

2023State v. Russell, 2018 MT 26, ¶ 10 , 390 Mont. 253 , 411 P.3d 1260 (citation omitted). ¶14 We review criminal sentences de novo to determine whether the district court’s interpretation of the law is correct.

2026A structural error is the type of error “that affects the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial itself.” Van Kirk, ¶ 38 (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 , 111 S. Ct. 1246, 1265 (1991)). “[A] structural error is presumptively prejudicial and automatically reversible; it is not subject to harmless error review.” State v. Santillan, 2017 MT 314, ¶ 34 , 390 Mont. 25 , 408 P.3d 130 (citation omitted).

2026She did not ask to continue the hearing or register an objection on the record that has been presented to this Court. ¶27 In rare cases, we will apply the plain-error doctrine to review unpreserved claims that implicate a party’s “fundamental constitutional rights and where failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Lawrence, 2016 MT 346, ¶ 9 , 386 Mont. 86 , 385 P.3d 968 (citations and quotations omitted).

2026She did not ask to continue the hearing or register an objection on the record that has been presented to this Court. ¶27 In rare cases, we will apply the plain-error doctrine to review unpreserved claims that implicate a party’s “fundamental constitutional rights and where failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Lawrence, 2016 MT 346, ¶ 9 , 386 Mont. 86 , 385 P.3d 968 (citations and quotations omitted).

2025State v. Hillious, 2025 MT 53, ¶ 13 , ___ Mont. ___, ___ P.3d ___.

2025Whether Lambert is entitled, on this record, to withdraw his admission to failing to register “as required” considering State v. Hinman. ¶33 Lambert asks, in the alternative, to withdraw his March 20, 2023 admission to failing to register “as required,” invoking State v. Hinman, 2023 MT 116 , 412 Mont. 434 , 530 P.3d 1271 , which held that post-2007 amendments to Montana’s Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act operate as punishment and apply prospectively.

2021Structural error is “error that affects the framework of the trial process, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” State v. Forsythe, 2017 MT 61, ¶ 40 , 387 Mont. 62 , 390 P.3d 931 (quoting State v. Van Kirk, 2001 MT 184, ¶ 38 , 306 Mont. 215 , 32 P.3d 735 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021Structural error is “error that affects the framework of the trial process, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” State v. Forsythe, 2017 MT 61, ¶ 40 , 387 Mont. 62 , 390 P.3d 931 (quoting State v. Van Kirk, 2001 MT 184, ¶ 38 , 306 Mont. 215 , 32 P.3d 735 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2020Weaver, U.S. at , 137 S. Ct. at 1907 .

2020In re H.T., 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 (citing In re J.C., 2008 MT 127, ¶ 43 , 343 Mont. 30 , 183 P.3d 22 ). “[I]f there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 39 , 298 Mont. 237 , 995 P.2d 427 .

2020In re H.T., 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 (citing In re J.C., 2008 MT 127, ¶ 43 , 343 Mont. 30 , 183 P.3d 22 ). “[I]f there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 39 , 298 Mont. 237 , 995 P.2d 427 .

2020In re H.T., 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 (citing In re J.C., 2008 MT 127, ¶ 43 , 343 Mont. 30 , 183 P.3d 22 ). “[I]f there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 39 , 298 Mont. 237 , 995 P.2d 427 .

2020In re H.T., 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 (citing In re J.C., 2008 MT 127, ¶ 43 , 343 Mont. 30 , 183 P.3d 22 ). “[I]f there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 39 , 298 Mont. 237 , 995 P.2d 427 .

2020In re H.T., 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 (citing In re J.C., 2008 MT 127, ¶ 43 , 343 Mont. 30 , 183 P.3d 22 ). “[I]f there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 39 , 298 Mont. 237 , 995 P.2d 427 .

2020In re H.T., 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 (citing In re J.C., 2008 MT 127, ¶ 43 , 343 Mont. 30 , 183 P.3d 22 ). “[I]f there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 39 , 298 Mont. 237 , 995 P.2d 427 .

2020In re H.T., 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 (citing In re J.C., 2008 MT 127, ¶ 43 , 343 Mont. 30 , 183 P.3d 22 ). “[I]f there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 39 , 298 Mont. 237 , 995 P.2d 427 .

2020In re H.T., 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 (citing In re J.C., 2008 MT 127, ¶ 43 , 343 Mont. 30 , 183 P.3d 22 ). “[I]f there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 39 , 298 Mont. 237 , 995 P.2d 427 .

2020In re H.T., 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 (citing In re J.C., 2008 MT 127, ¶ 43 , 343 Mont. 30 , 183 P.3d 22 ). “[I]f there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 39 , 298 Mont. 237 , 995 P.2d 427 .

2018Chaplin relies *919 primarily on Herring v. New York , 422 U.S. 853 , 95 S.Ct. 2550 , 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975), to assert the right to participate fully and fairly in the adversary fact-finding process, including a basic right to present a closing argument as part of his right to assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

2018Chaplin relies *919 primarily on Herring v. New York , 422 U.S. 853 , 95 S.Ct. 2550 , 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975), to assert the right to participate fully and fairly in the adversary fact-finding process, including a basic right to present a closing argument as part of his right to assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

2016“A structural error is one ‘which so infect! s I and contaminate^] the framework of the trial as to render it fundamentally unfair, requiring automatic reversal.’” Hartsoe , ¶ 31 (quoting State v. Charlie, 2010 MT 195, ¶ 40 , 357 Mont. 355 , 239 P.3d 934 ) (changes in original).

2016“A structural error is one ‘which so infect! s I and contaminate^] the framework of the trial as to render it fundamentally unfair, requiring automatic reversal.’” Hartsoe , ¶ 31 (quoting State v. Charlie, 2010 MT 195, ¶ 40 , 357 Mont. 355 , 239 P.3d 934 ) (changes in original).

2013State v. Bird, 2002 MT 2, ¶ 40 , 308 Mont. 75 , 43 P.3d 266 . ¶16 Wilson argues that our determination in Bird , that a defendant’s absence from voir dire of the juror constitutes a structural error, controls our determination here.

2013State v. Bird, 2002 MT 2, ¶ 40 , 308 Mont. 75 , 43 P.3d 266 . ¶16 Wilson argues that our determination in Bird , that a defendant’s absence from voir dire of the juror constitutes a structural error, controls our determination here.

2007Examples of structural error “include errors in the jury selection process, total deprivation of the right to counsel, and lack of an impartial trial judge.” State v. Francis, 2001 MT 233, ¶ 23 , 307 Mont. 12, ¶ 23 , 36 P.3d 390, ¶ 23 .

2007Examples of structural error “include errors in the jury selection process, total deprivation of the right to counsel, and lack of an impartial trial judge.” State v. Francis, 2001 MT 233, ¶ 23 , 307 Mont. 12, ¶ 23 , 36 P.3d 390, ¶ 23 .

2006State v. LaMere, 2005 MT 118, ¶ 25 , 327 Mont. 115, ¶ 25 , 112 P.3d 1005, ¶ 25 (citing State v. Van Kirk, 2001 MT 184, ¶ 38 , 306 Mont. 215, ¶ 38 , 32 P.3d 735, ¶ 38 ). ¶34 As the United State Supreme Court stated in Holloway v. Arkansas (1978), 435 U.S. 475, 489 , 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1181 , 55 L.Ed.2d 426 , the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the assistance of counsel is among those “constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.” In Holloway , the Supreme Court, after finding that a conflict of interest existed between counsel and the def

2006State v. LaMere, 2005 MT 118, ¶ 25 , 327 Mont. 115, ¶ 25 , 112 P.3d 1005, ¶ 25 (citing State v. Van Kirk, 2001 MT 184, ¶ 38 , 306 Mont. 215, ¶ 38 , 32 P.3d 735, ¶ 38 ). ¶34 As the United State Supreme Court stated in Holloway v. Arkansas (1978), 435 U.S. 475, 489 , 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1181 , 55 L.Ed.2d 426 , the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the assistance of counsel is among those “constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.” In Holloway , the Supreme Court, after finding that a conflict of interest existed between counsel and the def

2005Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692 , 104 S.Ct. at 2067 . ¶28 In the case sub judice, prejudice is adequately established because a structural error existed, and such errors are presumptively prejudicial.

2005Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692 , 104 S.Ct. at 2067 . ¶28 In the case sub judice, prejudice is adequately established because a structural error existed, and such errors are presumptively prejudicial.

2005State v. Bearchild, 2004 MT 355, ¶ 24 , 324 Mont. 435, ¶ 24 , 103 P.3d 1006, ¶ 24 . 5 Structural error indelibly affects the essential fairness of the trial itself, while trial error is that type of error which typically occurs during the presentation of a case to a jury and can be assessed by a reviewing court for prejudicial impact relative to the other evidence introduced at trial.

2005State v. Bearchild, 2004 MT 355, ¶ 24 , 324 Mont. 435, ¶ 24 , 103 P.3d 1006, ¶ 24 . 5 Structural error indelibly affects the essential fairness of the trial itself, while trial error is that type of error which typically occurs during the presentation of a case to a jury and can be assessed by a reviewing court for prejudicial impact relative to the other evidence introduced at trial.