district court committed reversible error in Montana

1992Notwithstanding that this Court in State v. Harris (1991), 247 Mont. 405 , 808 P.2d 453 , held that the District Court committed reversible error in that case when the jury was allowed to rehear the testimony of a child victim, I believe the Court should reconsider its decision in view of the provisions of § 46-16-503(2), MCA: “After the jury has retired for deliberation, if there is any disagreement among the jurors as to the testimony or if the jurors desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the cause, they shall notify the officer appointed to keep them together, who shall then

1992Notwithstanding that this Court in State v. Harris (1991), 247 Mont. 405 , 808 P.2d 453 , held that the District Court committed reversible error in that case when the jury was allowed to rehear the testimony of a child victim, I believe the Court should reconsider its decision in view of the provisions of § 46-16-503(2), MCA: “After the jury has retired for deliberation, if there is any disagreement among the jurors as to the testimony or if the jurors desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the cause, they shall notify the officer appointed to keep them together, who shall then

2015Further, we have also often stated that “ ‘we will not fault a district court for failing to address statutory deficiencies that are not brought to its attention during the proceedings because doing so would encourage litigants to withhold objections rather than raise the issues appropriately in the district court.’ ” In re A.S., 2006 MT 281, ¶ 35 , 334 Mont. 280 , 146 P.3d 778 (quoting In re Declaring A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 41 , 331 Mont. 208 , 130 P.3d 619 ). ¶29 On appeal, Mother argues the District Court committed reversible error when it failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days o

2015Further, we have also often stated that “ ‘we will not fault a district court for failing to address statutory deficiencies that are not brought to its attention during the proceedings because doing so would encourage litigants to withhold objections rather than raise the issues appropriately in the district court.’ ” In re A.S., 2006 MT 281, ¶ 35 , 334 Mont. 280 , 146 P.3d 778 (quoting In re Declaring A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 41 , 331 Mont. 208 , 130 P.3d 619 ). ¶29 On appeal, Mother argues the District Court committed reversible error when it failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days o

2015Further, we have also often stated that “ ‘we will not fault a district court for failing to address statutory deficiencies that are not brought to its attention during the proceedings because doing so would encourage litigants to withhold objections rather than raise the issues appropriately in the district court.’ ” In re A.S., 2006 MT 281, ¶ 35 , 334 Mont. 280 , 146 P.3d 778 (quoting In re Declaring A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 41 , 331 Mont. 208 , 130 P.3d 619 ). ¶29 On appeal, Mother argues the District Court committed reversible error when it failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days o

2015Further, we have also often stated that “ ‘we will not fault a district court for failing to address statutory deficiencies that are not brought to its attention during the proceedings because doing so would encourage litigants to withhold objections rather than raise the issues appropriately in the district court.’ ” In re A.S., 2006 MT 281, ¶ 35 , 334 Mont. 280 , 146 P.3d 778 (quoting In re Declaring A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 41 , 331 Mont. 208 , 130 P.3d 619 ). ¶29 On appeal, Mother argues the District Court committed reversible error when it failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days o

2025“Rebuttal evidence offered by the State is proper only if it tends to counteract a new matter offered by the defense and has a tendency to contradict or disprove that evidence.” State v. Jackson, 2009 MT 427, ¶ 68 , 354 Mont. 63 , 221 P.3d 1213 (emphasis added) (citing State v. Gardner, 2003 MT 338, ¶ 36 , 318 Mont. 436 , 80 P.3d 1262 ). ¶37 Hunt argues the District Court committed reversible error by admitting rebuttal evidence of uncharged acts.

2025“Rebuttal evidence offered by the State is proper only if it tends to counteract a new matter offered by the defense and has a tendency to contradict or disprove that evidence.” State v. Jackson, 2009 MT 427, ¶ 68 , 354 Mont. 63 , 221 P.3d 1213 (emphasis added) (citing State v. Gardner, 2003 MT 338, ¶ 36 , 318 Mont. 436 , 80 P.3d 1262 ). ¶37 Hunt argues the District Court committed reversible error by admitting rebuttal evidence of uncharged acts.

2025State v. Bomar, 2008 MT 91, ¶ 14 , 342 Mont. 281 , 182 P.3d 47 .

2025State v. Bomar, 2008 MT 91, ¶ 14 , 342 Mont. 281 , 182 P.3d 47 .

2025“Rebuttal evidence offered by the State is proper only if it tends to counteract a new matter offered by the defense and has a tendency to contradict or disprove that evidence.” State v. Jackson, 2009 MT 427, ¶ 68 , 354 Mont. 63 , 221 P.3d 1213 (emphasis added) (citing State v. Gardner, 2003 MT 338, ¶ 36 , 318 Mont. 436 , 80 P.3d 1262 ). ¶37 Hunt argues the District Court committed reversible error by admitting rebuttal evidence of uncharged acts.

2025“Rebuttal evidence offered by the State is proper only if it tends to counteract a new matter offered by the defense and has a tendency to contradict or disprove that evidence.” State v. Jackson, 2009 MT 427, ¶ 68 , 354 Mont. 63 , 221 P.3d 1213 (emphasis added) (citing State v. Gardner, 2003 MT 338, ¶ 36 , 318 Mont. 436 , 80 P.3d 1262 ). ¶37 Hunt argues the District Court committed reversible error by admitting rebuttal evidence of uncharged acts.

2023In re C.V., 2016 MT 307, ¶ 15 , 385 Mont. 429 , 384 P.3d 1048 . ¶7 T.R.S. asserts the District Court committed reversible error when it ignored its diversion order and proceeded to trial in reliance on an illegal mental health evaluation.

2023In re C.V., 2016 MT 307, ¶ 15 , 385 Mont. 429 , 384 P.3d 1048 . ¶7 T.R.S. asserts the District Court committed reversible error when it ignored its diversion order and proceeded to trial in reliance on an illegal mental health evaluation.

2023Whether the District Court committed reversible error when it determined that there was no reason to know Z.N.-M. was an Indian child under ICWA. ¶12 ICWA is the legislative embodiment of Congressional determination that the interests of Indian children are best served when the relationships between Indian children and Indian tribes are protected and preserved. 25 U.S.C. § 1901 , et seq; In re S.R., 2019 MT 47, ¶ 11 , 394 Mont. 362 , 436 P.3d 696 (citing Miss.

2023Whether the District Court committed reversible error when it determined that there was no reason to know Z.N.-M. was an Indian child under ICWA. ¶12 ICWA is the legislative embodiment of Congressional determination that the interests of Indian children are best served when the relationships between Indian children and Indian tribes are protected and preserved. 25 U.S.C. § 1901 , et seq; In re S.R., 2019 MT 47, ¶ 11 , 394 Mont. 362 , 436 P.3d 696 (citing Miss.

2023In re C.V., 2016 MT 307, ¶ 15 , 385 Mont. 429 , 384 P.3d 1048 . ¶7 T.R.S. asserts the District Court committed reversible error when it ignored its diversion order and proceeded to trial in reliance on an illegal mental health evaluation.

2021Northcutt, ¶ 11 (citing State v. Reim, 2014 MT 108, ¶¶ 36-40 , 374 Mont. 487 , 323 P.3d 880 ). 12 ¶36 Sinz relies on State v. Tapson, 2001 MT 292 , 307 Mont. 428 , 41 P.3d 305 , to argue that the District Court committed reversible error by responding to the jury’s inquiry without consulting the parties.

2021Northcutt, ¶ 11 (citing State v. Reim, 2014 MT 108, ¶¶ 36-40 , 374 Mont. 487 , 323 P.3d 880 ). 12 ¶36 Sinz relies on State v. Tapson, 2001 MT 292 , 307 Mont. 428 , 41 P.3d 305 , to argue that the District Court committed reversible error by responding to the jury’s inquiry without consulting the parties.

2021Northcutt, ¶ 11 (citing State v. Reim, 2014 MT 108, ¶¶ 36-40 , 374 Mont. 487 , 323 P.3d 880 ). 12 ¶36 Sinz relies on State v. Tapson, 2001 MT 292 , 307 Mont. 428 , 41 P.3d 305 , to argue that the District Court committed reversible error by responding to the jury’s inquiry without consulting the parties.

2021Northcutt, ¶ 11 (citing State v. Reim, 2014 MT 108, ¶¶ 36-40 , 374 Mont. 487 , 323 P.3d 880 ). 12 ¶36 Sinz relies on State v. Tapson, 2001 MT 292 , 307 Mont. 428 , 41 P.3d 305 , to argue that the District Court committed reversible error by responding to the jury’s inquiry without consulting the parties.

2017The record does not show that Adams and HSBC so clearly abused the discovery process that the Arbitrator’s failure to take punitive action against them constituted a “manifest disregard of the law.” Geissler, 285 Mont. at 416 , 949 P.2d at 238 . ¶60 Tedesco similarly argues that the District Court committed reversible error by failing to enforce discovery rules against Adams and HSBC. 2 He alleges that Adams and HSBC repeatedly refused to respond to his interrogatories and requests for production, in violation of the District Court’s discovery orders.

2017The record does not show that Adams and HSBC so clearly abused the discovery process that the Arbitrator’s failure to take punitive action against them constituted a “manifest disregard of the law.” Geissler, 285 Mont. at 416 , 949 P.2d at 238 . ¶60 Tedesco similarly argues that the District Court committed reversible error by failing to enforce discovery rules against Adams and HSBC. 2 He alleges that Adams and HSBC repeatedly refused to respond to his interrogatories and requests for production, in violation of the District Court’s discovery orders.

2016State v. Delaney, 1999 MT 317, ¶ 14 , 297 Mont. 263 , 991 P.2d 461 . 3 ¶8 On appeal, Hofer maintains that the District Court committed reversible error when it admitted Hofer’s blood alcohol sample results into evidence.

2016State v. Delaney, 1999 MT 317, ¶ 14 , 297 Mont. 263 , 991 P.2d 461 . 3 ¶8 On appeal, Hofer maintains that the District Court committed reversible error when it admitted Hofer’s blood alcohol sample results into evidence.

2016A district court abuses its discretion if it “acts arbitrarily, without employment of conscientious judgment, or exceeds the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice.” In re J.M., 2009 MT 332, ¶ 12 , 353 Mont. 64 , 218 P.3d 1213 . ¶9 Danielle contends that the District Court committed reversible error because it did not properly weigh the evidence she presented.

2016A district court abuses its discretion if it “acts arbitrarily, without employment of conscientious judgment, or exceeds the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice.” In re J.M., 2009 MT 332, ¶ 12 , 353 Mont. 64 , 218 P.3d 1213 . ¶9 Danielle contends that the District Court committed reversible error because it did not properly weigh the evidence she presented.

2016State v. Aker, 2013 MT 253, ¶ 24 , 371 Mont. 491 , 310 P.3d 506 .

2016State v. Aker, 2013 MT 253, ¶ 24 , 371 Mont. 491 , 310 P.3d 506 .

2004In making this argument, PLAA relies on Webb v. Wolfe (1988), 230 Mont. 322, 325 , 749 P.2d 531, 532 , in which this Court held where the fact stipulated to is material, the stipulation is binding on the court. ¶19 PLAA then argues the District Court committed reversible error when it relied on the language of Rule 16(e), M.R.Civ.P., in strictly adhering to the agreed issues set forth in the Final Pre-Trial Order.

2004In making this argument, PLAA relies on Webb v. Wolfe (1988), 230 Mont. 322, 325 , 749 P.2d 531, 532 , in which this Court held where the fact stipulated to is material, the stipulation is binding on the court. ¶19 PLAA then argues the District Court committed reversible error when it relied on the language of Rule 16(e), M.R.Civ.P., in strictly adhering to the agreed issues set forth in the Final Pre-Trial Order.

2004The District Court erred in applying the “reasonable regulation” standard in the instant case as Windsor Park was decided almost ten years before the United States Supreme Court’s articulation of the hybrid claims doctrine in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), 494 U.S. 872 , 110 S.Ct. 1595 , 108 L.Ed.2d 876 . ¶21 MHSA’s membership bylaw is a neutral law of general applicability.

2004The District Court erred in applying the “reasonable regulation” standard in the instant case as Windsor Park was decided almost ten years before the United States Supreme Court’s articulation of the hybrid claims doctrine in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), 494 U.S. 872 , 110 S.Ct. 1595 , 108 L.Ed.2d 876 . ¶21 MHSA’s membership bylaw is a neutral law of general applicability.

2004By ignoring the relevant inquiry under § 27-19-201, MCA, and by instead prematurely reaching the ultimate issues raised in Valley Christian’s complaint, the District Court committed reversible error. ¶20 In reaching its decision, the District Court relied on Windsor Park Baptist Church, Inc. v. Arkansas Activities Ass’n (8th Cir. 1981), 658 F.2d 618 , wherein the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the rule conditioning participation in interscholastic activities on state accreditation was a “reasonable regulation” of education and that no violation of the Free Exercise Clause had

2004By ignoring the relevant inquiry under § 27-19-201, MCA, and by instead prematurely reaching the ultimate issues raised in Valley Christian's complaint, the District Court committed reversible error. ¶ 20 In reaching its decision, the District Court relied on Windsor Park Baptist Church, Inc. v. Arkansas Activities Ass'n (8th Cir.1981), 658 F.2d 618 , wherein the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the rule conditioning participation in interscholastic activities on state accreditation was a "reasonable regulation" of education and that no violation of the Free Exercise Clause had

2003Samson contends that it was a gross injustice for the State to take these inconsistent positions, and error for the District Court to deny her instruction meant to highlight the State’s fundamentally unfair posture. ¶31 Samson relies on this Court’s holdings in Rix v. General Motors (1986), 222 Mont. 318 , 723 P.2d 195 , and Chambers v. Pierson (1994), 266 Mont. 436 , 880 P.2d 1350 , to claim the District Court committed reversible error.

2003Samson contends that it was a gross injustice for the State to take these inconsistent positions, and error for the District Court to deny her instruction meant to highlight the State’s fundamentally unfair posture. ¶31 Samson relies on this Court’s holdings in Rix v. General Motors (1986), 222 Mont. 318 , 723 P.2d 195 , and Chambers v. Pierson (1994), 266 Mont. 436 , 880 P.2d 1350 , to claim the District Court committed reversible error.

2003Samson contends that it was a gross injustice for the State to take these inconsistent positions, and error for the District Court to deny her instruction meant to highlight the State’s fundamentally unfair posture. ¶31 Samson relies on this Court’s holdings in Rix v. General Motors (1986), 222 Mont. 318 , 723 P.2d 195 , and Chambers v. Pierson (1994), 266 Mont. 436 , 880 P.2d 1350 , to claim the District Court committed reversible error.

2003Samson contends that it was a gross injustice for the State to take these inconsistent positions, and error for the District Court to deny her instruction meant to highlight the State’s fundamentally unfair posture. ¶31 Samson relies on this Court’s holdings in Rix v. General Motors (1986), 222 Mont. 318 , 723 P.2d 195 , and Chambers v. Pierson (1994), 266 Mont. 436 , 880 P.2d 1350 , to claim the District Court committed reversible error.

2003One “must object to improper testimony when it is offered or abide the result; failure to object at the proper time waives the error.” State v. Lawrence (1997), 285 Mont. 140, 163 , 948 P.2d 186 . 200. *448 Discussion ¶50 Gardner alleges that the District Court committed reversible error in allowing Detective Steffins to testify that, according to the “Reid Technique,” Gardner was lying in his interviews.

2003One “must object to improper testimony when it is offered or abide the result; failure to object at the proper time waives the error.” State v. Lawrence (1997), 285 Mont. 140, 163 , 948 P.2d 186 . 200. *448 Discussion ¶50 Gardner alleges that the District Court committed reversible error in allowing Detective Steffins to testify that, according to the “Reid Technique,” Gardner was lying in his interviews.

2001Illinois v. Allen (1970), 397 U.S. 337, 338 , 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1058 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 .

2001Illinois v. Allen (1970), 397 U.S. 337, 338 , 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1058 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 .

2000State v. Langford (1994), 267 Mont. 95, 99 , 882 P.2d 490, 492 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 . ¶18 Swan first argues that the District Court committed reversible error in basing its denial of his request to represent himself on the court’s conclusion that he would not do so adequately.

2000State v. Langford (1994), 267 Mont. 95, 99 , 882 P.2d 490, 492 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 . ¶18 Swan first argues that the District Court committed reversible error in basing its denial of his request to represent himself on the court’s conclusion that he would not do so adequately.

2000State v. Langford (1994), 267 Mont. 95, 99 , 882 P.2d 490, 492 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 . ¶18 Swan first argues that the District Court committed reversible error in basing its denial of his request to represent himself on the court’s conclusion that he would not do so adequately.

2000We agree that Black requires a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation (Black, 471 U.S. at 611-12 , 105 S.Ct. at 2258 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 643 ), but disagree that the District Court committed reversible error in this regard. ¶13 In Black , the sentencing court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered execution of the previously imposed sentence.

2000We agree that Black requires a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation (Black, 471 U.S. at 611-12 , 105 S.Ct. at 2258 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 643 ), but disagree that the District Court committed reversible error in this regard. ¶13 In Black , the sentencing court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered execution of the previously imposed sentence.