Account information only. It is never shown to the AI client you connect, and it is kept apart from your research — which is not logged at all.
Your token is the key to the MCP: claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode take it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. It is also in your welcome email. Install instructions.
No token yet. One token per address, shown once and mailed to you with setup steps — claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode need it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. Install instructions.
Your MCP token. Anyone holding it can search on your subscription, so keep it off shared screens.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
The dedicated fast index: searches run on a machine nobody else queues for, with full-text highlighted excerpts. Higher MCP limits, and semantic search when it lands.
See ProThank you.
Manage billingDelete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. Registered visitors skip the Cloudflare checks, and your MCP token for Claude or ChatGPT is issued at the end of this.
Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
Here is your MCP token. It is shown once — it is also in the welcome email we just sent you, with setup steps.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
That address already had a token, so we did not issue a second one — two live credentials for one mailbox is how people end up with a working laptop and a broken office machine. Your connector URL is in your inbox under “Your Syfert legal research connector URL”; if it is gone, call 904-383-7448.
39 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1911–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2013However, cumulative evidence will be deemed harmless “unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, ¶ 86 , 296 Mont. 282 , 989 P.2d 338 (1999) (quoting State v. Carter, 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (1997)); § 46-20-701(1), MCA. ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it ‘arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.’ ’’State v. Meredith, 2010 MT 27, ¶ 45 , 355 Mont. 148 , 226 P.3d 571 (citing State v. Schauf, 2009 MT 281, ¶ 41 , 352 Mont. 186 , 216 P.3d 740 (quoting State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 26 2013However, cumulative evidence will be deemed harmless “unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, ¶ 86 , 296 Mont. 282 , 989 P.2d 338 (1999) (quoting State v. Carter, 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (1997)); § 46-20-701(1), MCA. ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it ‘arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.’ ’’State v. Meredith, 2010 MT 27, ¶ 45 , 355 Mont. 148 , 226 P.3d 571 (citing State v. Schauf, 2009 MT 281, ¶ 41 , 352 Mont. 186 , 216 P.3d 740 (quoting State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 26 | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bowergreen2 sentences1999This Court has stated that “[a]n error by the trial court will be deemed harmless ‘unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.’ ” State v. Carter (1997), 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (citing State v. Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 5-6 , 833 P.2d 1106, 1109 (quoting § 46-20-701(1), MCA)). 1999This Court has stated that “[a]n error by the trial court will be deemed harmless ‘unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.’ ” State v. Carter (1997), 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (citing State v. Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 5-6 , 833 P.2d 1106, 1109 (quoting § 46-20-701(1), MCA)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Graygreen2 sentences2014We must conclude that the admission of this testimony was an abuse of discretion by the District Court. ¶20 The State argues the error was not reversible, and § 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides that a cause “may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” We held in State v. Gray, 207 Mont. 261, 268 , 673 P.2d 1262, 1266 (1983), that an error requires reversal if a reasonable possibility exists that the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to a conviction. 2014We must conclude that the admission of this testimony was an abuse of discretion by the District Court. ¶20 The State argues the error was not reversible, and § 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides that a cause “may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” We held in State v. Gray, 207 Mont. 261, 268 , 673 P.2d 1262, 1266 (1983), that an error requires reversal if a reasonable possibility exists that the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to a conviction. | 1 | 5 |
Postconviction Relief of Brodniak v. Stategreen2 sentences1994The test to decide if the prejudicial error requires a reversal is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to the verdict.” Brodniak v. State (1989), 239 Mont. 110, 114 , 779 P.2d 71, 73 , (quoting State v. Gray (1983), 207 Mont. 261, 268 , 673 P.2d 1262, 1266 ). 1994The test to decide if the prejudicial error requires a reversal is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to the verdict.” Brodniak v. State (1989), 239 Mont. 110, 114 , 779 P.2d 71, 73 , (quoting State v. Gray (1983), 207 Mont. 261, 268 , 673 P.2d 1262, 1266 ). | 1 | 2 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Sanders v. State, 2004 MT 374, ¶ 15 , 325 Mont. 59, ¶ 15 , 103 P.3d 1053, ¶ 15 (citation omitted). 2 ¶5 A district court may not be reversed for a statutory error unless the record shows the error was prejudicial. 2006Sanders v. State, 2004 MT 374, ¶ 15 , 325 Mont. 59, ¶ 15 , 103 P.3d 1053, ¶ 15 (citation omitted). 2 ¶5 A district court may not be reversed for a statutory error unless the record shows the error was prejudicial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Berggreen2 sentences2004Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides that “[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Berg, 1999 MT 282, ¶ 22 , 296 Mont. 546, ¶ 22 , 991 P.2d 428, ¶ 22 (citation omitted). 2004Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides that “[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Berg, 1999 MT 282, ¶ 22 , 296 Mont. 546, ¶ 22 , 991 P.2d 428, ¶ 22 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weitzelgreen2 sentences2002We determine the same reasoning applies here, and conclude that while “fabrication instructions” are improper comments on the evidence, Nelson was not prejudiced by the giving of Instruction No. 14. ¶26 Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides that “[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” Although Nelson denied any involvement in the crimes, his version of the events was in stark contrast to that of Fred, Jim, and Shari, and as sole judges of witness credibility, it was le 2002We determine the same reasoning applies here, and conclude that while “fabrication instructions” are improper comments on the evidence, Nelson was not prejudiced by the giving of Instruction No. 14. ¶26 Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides that “[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” Although Nelson denied any involvement in the crimes, his version of the events was in stark contrast to that of Fred, Jim, and Shari, and as sole judges of witness credibility, it was le | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2001See State v. Miller (1996), 278 Mont. 231, 235 , 924 P.2d 690, 692 (citations omitted). 2001See State v. Miller (1996), 278 Mont. 231, 235 , 924 P.2d 690, 692 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Henrichgreen2 sentences1999Compare State v. Henrich (1994), 268 Mont. 258, 268 , 886 P.2d 402, 408 (concluding that district court’s failure to give Harris instruction before allowing jury to hear portion of witness’ testimony was harmless error). 1999Compare State v. Henrich (1994), 268 Mont. 258, 268 , 886 P.2d 402, 408 (concluding that district court’s failure to give Harris instruction before allowing jury to hear portion of witness’ testimony was harmless error). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bubnashgreen2 sentences1997See State v. Bubnash (1963), 142 Mont. 377, 393-94 , 382 P.2d 830, 838 ; State v. Straight (1959), 136 Mont. 255, 264-65 , 347 P.2d 482, 488 . 1997See State v. Bubnash (1963), 142 Mont. 377, 393-94 , 382 P.2d 830, 838 ; State v. Straight (1959), 136 Mont. 255, 264-65 , 347 P.2d 482, 488 . | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Seamangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Van Kirk
green
2 sentences2015Therefore, assuming error, we proceed to evaluate whether the error “prejudiced [Larson’s] right to a fair trial and is therefore reversible.” 2 State v. Van Kirk, 2001 MT 184, ¶¶ 36-37 , 306 *104 Mont. 215, 32 P.3d 735 . ¶33 Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides “a cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” Once a defendant demonstrates trial error and alleges prejudice, “the State must demonstrate that there is no reasonable possibility that the inadmissible evidence might h 2015Therefore, assuming error, we proceed to evaluate whether the error “prejudiced [Larson’s] right to a fair trial and is therefore reversible.” 2 State v. Van Kirk, 2001 MT 184, ¶¶ 36-37 , 306 *104 Mont. 215, 32 P.3d 735 . ¶33 Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides “a cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” Once a defendant demonstrates trial error and alleges prejudice, “the State must demonstrate that there is no reasonable possibility that the inadmissible evidence might h | 9 | 2001–2015 |
Vandewater v. New York & New England Railroad
neutral
2 sentences1999Furthermore, the option of continuing the trial date and imposing any related costs of delay as a sanction against Dezeeuw's attorney was available. ¶ 16 Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court's exclusion of Dezeeuw's witnesses, specifically the exclusion of an eyewitness to the altercation, when Dezeeuw's only defense was self-defense, hindered the search for truth and therefore was an abuse of the District Court's discretion, and that a less severe sanction should have been imposed, which would not have denied the jury its fact finding role. ¶ 17 Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides 1999Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides that "[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial." See State v. Maier, 1999 MT 51 , 293 Mont. 403 , 977 P.2d 298 , 56 St.Rep. 208 . ¶ 48 Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court's flight instruction did not prejudice Hall and therefore is not reversible error. | 3 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Maier
green
2 sentences1999Furthermore, the option of continuing the trial date and imposing any related costs of delay as a sanction against Dezeeuw’s attorney was available. ¶16 Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court’s exclusion of Dezeeuw’s witnesses, specifically the exclusion of an eyewitness to the altercation, when Dezeeuw’s only defense was self-defense, hindered the search for truth and therefore was an abuse of the District Court’s discretion, and that a less severe sanction should have been imposed, which would not have denied the jury its fact finding role. ¶17 Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides t 1999Furthermore, the option of continuing the trial date and imposing any related costs of delay as a sanction against Dezeeuw’s attorney was available. ¶16 Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court’s exclusion of Dezeeuw’s witnesses, specifically the exclusion of an eyewitness to the altercation, when Dezeeuw’s only defense was self-defense, hindered the search for truth and therefore was an abuse of the District Court’s discretion, and that a less severe sanction should have been imposed, which would not have denied the jury its fact finding role. ¶17 Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides t | 3 | 1999–1999 |
Fahy v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences1982The federal constitutional test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction, Fahy v. Connecticut (1963), 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 ; or whether the reviewing court can declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 1982The federal constitutional test for harmless error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction, Fahy v. Connecticut (1963), 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 ; or whether the reviewing court can declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 3 | 1981–1982 |
State v. Hansen
green
2 sentences2013However, cumulative evidence will be deemed harmless “unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, ¶ 86 , 296 Mont. 282 , 989 P.2d 338 (1999) (quoting State v. Carter, 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (1997)); § 46-20-701(1), MCA. ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it ‘arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.’ ’’State v. Meredith, 2010 MT 27, ¶ 45 , 355 Mont. 148 , 226 P.3d 571 (citing State v. Schauf, 2009 MT 281, ¶ 41 , 352 Mont. 186 , 216 P.3d 740 (quoting State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 26 2013However, cumulative evidence will be deemed harmless “unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, ¶ 86 , 296 Mont. 282 , 989 P.2d 338 (1999) (quoting State v. Carter, 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (1997)); § 46-20-701(1), MCA. ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it ‘arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.’ ’’State v. Meredith, 2010 MT 27, ¶ 45 , 355 Mont. 148 , 226 P.3d 571 (citing State v. Schauf, 2009 MT 281, ¶ 41 , 352 Mont. 186 , 216 P.3d 740 (quoting State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 26 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Wells
green
2 sentences1998State v. Wells (1983), 202 Mont. 337, 349 , 658 P.2d 381, 388 . 1998State v. Wells (1983), 202 Mont. 337, 349 , 658 P.2d 381, 388 . | 2 | 1995–1998 |
State v. LaVe
green
2 sentences1993“The test of prejudicial error requiring reversal is whether there is a reasonable possibility the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to the verdict.” State v. Gray (1983), 207 Mont. 261, 268 , 673 P.2d 1262, 1266 ; State v. Gray (1983), 202 Mont. 445, 449-450 , 659 P.2d 255, 257 ; State v. LaVe (1977), 174 Mont. 401, 407 , 571 P.2d 97, 101 . 1993“The test of prejudicial error requiring reversal is whether there is a reasonable possibility the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to the verdict.” State v. Gray (1983), 207 Mont. 261, 268 , 673 P.2d 1262, 1266 ; State v. Gray (1983), 202 Mont. 445, 449-450 , 659 P.2d 255, 257 ; State v. LaVe (1977), 174 Mont. 401, 407 , 571 P.2d 97, 101 . | 2 | 1989–1993 |
State v. Gray
green
2 sentences1993“The test of prejudicial error requiring reversal is whether there is a reasonable possibility the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to the verdict.” State v. Gray (1983), 207 Mont. 261, 268 , 673 P.2d 1262, 1266 ; State v. Gray (1983), 202 Mont. 445, 449-450 , 659 P.2d 255, 257 ; State v. LaVe (1977), 174 Mont. 401, 407 , 571 P.2d 97, 101 . 1993“The test of prejudicial error requiring reversal is whether there is a reasonable possibility the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to the verdict.” State v. Gray (1983), 207 Mont. 261, 268 , 673 P.2d 1262, 1266 ; State v. Gray (1983), 202 Mont. 445, 449-450 , 659 P.2d 255, 257 ; State v. LaVe (1977), 174 Mont. 401, 407 , 571 P.2d 97, 101 . | 2 | 1989–1993 |
State v. Hudon
neutral
2 sentences2023Regardless of matters of substance or form, “‘[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial . . . .’” State v. Hudon, 2019 MT 31, ¶ 29 , 394 Mont. 226 , 434 P.3d 273 (quoting § 46-20-701(1), MCA). 2023Regardless of matters of substance or form, “‘[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial . . . .’” State v. Hudon, 2019 MT 31, ¶ 29 , 394 Mont. 226 , 434 P.3d 273 (quoting § 46-20-701(1), MCA). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Nevada R. Ugalde
green
2 sentences2013Unfairly prejudicial evidence “arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.” State v. Ugalde, 2013 MT 308, ¶ 47 , 372 Mont. 234 , 311 P.3d 772 . ¶28 Mederos’s counsel could exercise discretion regarding when to object. 2013Unfairly prejudicial evidence “arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.” State v. Ugalde, 2013 MT 308, ¶ 47 , 372 Mont. 234 , 311 P.3d 772 . ¶28 Mederos’s counsel could exercise discretion regarding when to object. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Bieber
green
2 sentences2013However, cumulative evidence will be deemed harmless “unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, ¶ 86 , 296 Mont. 282 , 989 P.2d 338 (1999) (quoting State v. Carter, 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (1997)); § 46-20-701(1), MCA. ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it ‘arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.’ ’’State v. Meredith, 2010 MT 27, ¶ 45 , 355 Mont. 148 , 226 P.3d 571 (citing State v. Schauf, 2009 MT 281, ¶ 41 , 352 Mont. 186 , 216 P.3d 740 (quoting State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 26 2013However, cumulative evidence will be deemed harmless “unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, ¶ 86 , 296 Mont. 282 , 989 P.2d 338 (1999) (quoting State v. Carter, 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (1997)); § 46-20-701(1), MCA. ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it ‘arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.’ ’’State v. Meredith, 2010 MT 27, ¶ 45 , 355 Mont. 148 , 226 P.3d 571 (citing State v. Schauf, 2009 MT 281, ¶ 41 , 352 Mont. 186 , 216 P.3d 740 (quoting State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 26 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Stefanie Schauf
green
2 sentences2013However, cumulative evidence will be deemed harmless “unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, ¶ 86 , 296 Mont. 282 , 989 P.2d 338 (1999) (quoting State v. Carter, 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (1997)); § 46-20-701(1), MCA. ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it ‘arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.’ ’’State v. Meredith, 2010 MT 27, ¶ 45 , 355 Mont. 148 , 226 P.3d 571 (citing State v. Schauf, 2009 MT 281, ¶ 41 , 352 Mont. 186 , 216 P.3d 740 (quoting State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 26 2013However, cumulative evidence will be deemed harmless “unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, ¶ 86 , 296 Mont. 282 , 989 P.2d 338 (1999) (quoting State v. Carter, 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (1997)); § 46-20-701(1), MCA. ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it ‘arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.’ ’’State v. Meredith, 2010 MT 27, ¶ 45 , 355 Mont. 148 , 226 P.3d 571 (citing State v. Schauf, 2009 MT 281, ¶ 41 , 352 Mont. 186 , 216 P.3d 740 (quoting State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 26 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Meredith
green
2 sentences2013However, cumulative evidence will be deemed harmless “unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, ¶ 86 , 296 Mont. 282 , 989 P.2d 338 (1999) (quoting State v. Carter, 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (1997)); § 46-20-701(1), MCA. ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it ‘arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.’ ’’State v. Meredith, 2010 MT 27, ¶ 45 , 355 Mont. 148 , 226 P.3d 571 (citing State v. Schauf, 2009 MT 281, ¶ 41 , 352 Mont. 186 , 216 P.3d 740 (quoting State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 26 2013However, cumulative evidence will be deemed harmless “unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” State v. Hansen, 1999 MT 253, ¶ 86 , 296 Mont. 282 , 989 P.2d 338 (1999) (quoting State v. Carter, 285 Mont. 449, 459 , 948 P.2d 1173, 1178-79 (1997)); § 46-20-701(1), MCA. ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it ‘arouses the jury’s hostility or sympathy for one side without regard to its probative value.’ ’’State v. Meredith, 2010 MT 27, ¶ 45 , 355 Mont. 148 , 226 P.3d 571 (citing State v. Schauf, 2009 MT 281, ¶ 41 , 352 Mont. 186 , 216 P.3d 740 (quoting State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 26 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Nolan
neutral
2 sentences2004Van Kirk , ¶ 46; State v. Nolan, 2003 MT 55, ¶ 25 , 314 Mont. 371, ¶ 25 , 66 P.3d 269, ¶ 25 . ¶46 The central dispute in this trial was whether the sexual acts were committed. 2004Van Kirk , ¶ 46; State v. Nolan, 2003 MT 55, ¶ 25 , 314 Mont. 371, ¶ 25 , 66 P.3d 269, ¶ 25 . ¶46 The central dispute in this trial was whether the sexual acts were committed. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Daniels
green
2 sentences2004State v. Daniels, 7 2003 MT 247, ¶ 21 , 317 Mont. 331, ¶ 21 , 77 P.3d 224, ¶ 21 ; Dawson, ¶ 20. ¶29 The foregoing procedure is compatible with § 46-20-701(1), MCA, which provides, “[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” ¶30 Thus, for Anthony to prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim he "must first show that his counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to find arguable issues to appeal–that is, that counsel unreasonably failed to discover nonfri 2004State v. Daniels, 7 2003 MT 247, ¶ 21 , 317 Mont. 331, ¶ 21 , 77 P.3d 224, ¶ 21 ; Dawson, ¶ 20. ¶29 The foregoing procedure is compatible with § 46-20-701(1), MCA, which provides, “[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” ¶30 Thus, for Anthony to prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim he "must first show that his counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to find arguable issues to appeal–that is, that counsel unreasonably failed to discover nonfri | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Smith v. Robbins
green
2 sentences2004State v. Daniels, 7 2003 MT 247, ¶ 21 , 317 Mont. 331, ¶ 21 , 77 P.3d 224, ¶ 21 ; Dawson, ¶ 20. ¶29 The foregoing procedure is compatible with § 46-20-701(1), MCA, which provides, “[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” ¶30 Thus, for Anthony to prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim he "must first show that his counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to find arguable issues to appeal–that is, that counsel unreasonably failed to discover nonfri 2004State v. Daniels, 7 2003 MT 247, ¶ 21 , 317 Mont. 331, ¶ 21 , 77 P.3d 224, ¶ 21 ; Dawson, ¶ 20. ¶29 The foregoing procedure is compatible with § 46-20-701(1), MCA, which provides, “[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” ¶30 Thus, for Anthony to prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim he "must first show that his counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to find arguable issues to appeal–that is, that counsel unreasonably failed to discover nonfri | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2002We determine the same reasoning applies here, and conclude that while “fabrication instructions” are improper comments on the evidence, Nelson was not prejudiced by the giving of Instruction No. 14. ¶26 Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides that “[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” Although Nelson denied any involvement in the crimes, his version of the events was in stark contrast to that of Fred, Jim, and Shari, and as sole judges of witness credibility, it was le 2002We determine the same reasoning applies here, and conclude that while “fabrication instructions” are improper comments on the evidence, Nelson was not prejudiced by the giving of Instruction No. 14. ¶26 Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides that “[a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.” Although Nelson denied any involvement in the crimes, his version of the events was in stark contrast to that of Fred, Jim, and Shari, and as sole judges of witness credibility, it was le | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Straight
green
2 sentences1997See State v. Bubnash (1963), 142 Mont. 377, 393-94 , 382 P.2d 830, 838 ; State v. Straight (1959), 136 Mont. 255, 264-65 , 347 P.2d 482, 488 . 1997See State v. Bubnash (1963), 142 Mont. 377, 393-94 , 382 P.2d 830, 838 ; State v. Straight (1959), 136 Mont. 255, 264-65 , 347 P.2d 482, 488 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Newman
green
2 sentences1996State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 150 , 875 P.2d 307, 321 ; State v. Newman (1990), 242 Mont. 315, 325 , 790 P.2d 971, 977 . 1996State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 150 , 875 P.2d 307, 321 ; State v. Newman (1990), 242 Mont. 315, 325 , 790 P.2d 971, 977 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Arlington
green
2 sentences1996State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 150 , 875 P.2d 307, 321 ; State v. Newman (1990), 242 Mont. 315, 325 , 790 P.2d 971, 977 . 1996State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 150 , 875 P.2d 307, 321 ; State v. Newman (1990), 242 Mont. 315, 325 , 790 P.2d 971, 977 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Brush green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Spradlin v. Stanley's Adm'r neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.