made exception in Montana

2026Like in McDowell, it is unreasonable for Richards to expect that the District Court would have abstained from imposing mandatory financial obligations had the prosecutor not recommended them. ¶15 Richards has not met his burden of firmly convincing this Court, City of Missoula v. Charlie, 2025 MT 85, ¶¶ 17-18 , 421 Mont. 403 , 567 P.3d 922 (citations omitted), that he did not receive the benefit of his bargain to the extent that it “affected the fairness, integrity[,] or public reputation” of the sentencing proceedings.

2026Like in McDowell, it is unreasonable for Richards to expect that the District Court would have abstained from imposing mandatory financial obligations had the prosecutor not recommended them. ¶15 Richards has not met his burden of firmly convincing this Court, City of Missoula v. Charlie, 2025 MT 85, ¶¶ 17-18 , 421 Mont. 403 , 567 P.3d 922 (citations omitted), that he did not receive the benefit of his bargain to the extent that it “affected the fairness, integrity[,] or public reputation” of the sentencing proceedings.

2023In re Marriage of Williams, 2018 MT 221, ¶ 5 , 392 Mont. 484 , 425 P.3d 1277 (citation omitted).

2023In re Marriage of Williams, 2018 MT 221, ¶ 5 , 392 Mont. 484 , 425 P.3d 1277 (citation omitted).

1985This Court made an exception to that rule in Anderson v. Baker (1981), 196 Mont. 494 , 641 P.2d 1035 .

1985This Court made an exception to that rule in Anderson v. Baker (1981), 196 Mont. 494 , 641 P.2d 1035 .

1965In 1955 in the ease of State v. McKnight, supra, in a cattle stealing case an exception was made, as above set forth, and there the court made the exception without citing either State v. Keays or State v. Mercer, supra. Since that time the matter has been treated in an annotation to Stephenson v. United States, (9th Cir. 1954), 211 F.2d 702 , 14 Alaska 603 , 53 A.L.R. 2d 812, 827 , and reveals the majority view to be that the testimony of a thief against the one charged with receiving the stolen property is not subject to the infirmities attached to accomplice testimony.

1965In 1955 in the ease of State v. McKnight, supra, in a cattle stealing case an exception was made, as above set forth, and there the court made the exception without citing either State v. Keays or State v. Mercer, supra. Since that time the matter has been treated in an annotation to Stephenson v. United States, (9th Cir. 1954), 211 F.2d 702 , 14 Alaska 603 , 53 A.L.R. 2d 812, 827 , and reveals the majority view to be that the testimony of a thief against the one charged with receiving the stolen property is not subject to the infirmities attached to accomplice testimony.

1913The instructions, however, must be taken as a whole (Stephens v. Elliott, 36 Mont. 92 , 92 Pac. 45 ), and it is incredible that the jury could have been misled by the merely negative inference to be drawn from instructions 6 and 7, when they were told in positive terms by instruction 1 wbat the issues were, including the special defenses of contributory negligence and the release; by instruction J that, to warrant a recovery, the accident must have been due to some act of negligence alleged in the complaint; by instruction 9 that, if the release was signed in consideration of the sum of $50 wh

1913The instructions, however, must be taken as a whole (Stephens v. Elliott, 36 Mont. 92 , 92 Pac. 45 ), and it is incredible that the jury could have been misled by the merely negative inference to be drawn from instructions 6 and 7, when they were told in positive terms by instruction 1 wbat the issues were, including the special defenses of contributory negligence and the release; by instruction J that, to warrant a recovery, the accident must have been due to some act of negligence alleged in the complaint; by instruction 9 that, if the release was signed in consideration of the sum of $50 wh