prejudicial error in Montana

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 ).

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 ).

2017State v. Ingraham, 1998 MT 156, ¶ 50 , 290 Mont. 18 , 966 P.2d 103 . ¶17 Stutzman argued in closing that R.W. and K.W. fabricated the allegations against him as a way to get him out of their home, and he questioned the children’s ability to understand the repercussions of lying.

2017State v. Ingraham, 1998 MT 156, ¶ 50 , 290 Mont. 18 , 966 P.2d 103 . ¶17 Stutzman argued in closing that R.W. and K.W. fabricated the allegations against him as a way to get him out of their home, and he questioned the children’s ability to understand the repercussions of lying.

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 ).

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 ).

1994State v. Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 6 , 833 P.2d 1106, 1109 ; Brodniak v. State (1989), 239 Mont. 110, 114 , 779 P.2d 71, 73 ; State v. Brush (1987), 228 Mont. 247, 252 , 741 P.2d 1333, 1336 .

1994State v. Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 6 , 833 P.2d 1106, 1109 ; Brodniak v. State (1989), 239 Mont. 110, 114 , 779 P.2d 71, 73 ; State v. Brush (1987), 228 Mont. 247, 252 , 741 P.2d 1333, 1336 .

1994State v. Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 6 , 833 P.2d 1106, 1109 ; Brodniak v. State (1989), 239 Mont. 110, 114 , 779 P.2d 71, 73 ; State v. Brush (1987), 228 Mont. 247, 252 , 741 P.2d 1333, 1336 .

1994State v. Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 6 , 833 P.2d 1106, 1109 ; Brodniak v. State (1989), 239 Mont. 110, 114 , 779 P.2d 71, 73 ; State v. Brush (1987), 228 Mont. 247, 252 , 741 P.2d 1333, 1336 .

1991Analogizing the videotaped statement to a deposition, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing the jurors unrestricted, unsupervised access to the videotape during their deliberations, stating: “[B]ecause jurors may give undue weight to the testimony contained within a deposition which they take with them and may not accord adequate consideration to controverting testimony received from live witnesses, it is the universal rule that depositions may not be reviewed by a jury on an unsupervised basis. [Citations omitted.] “For these reasons,

1983State v. LaVe, supra, 174 Mont. at 407 , 571 P.2d at 101 ; See also Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 ; Kotteakos v. United States (1946), 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 90 L.Ed. 1557, 1566-1567 .

1983State v. LaVe, supra, 174 Mont. at 407 , 571 P.2d at 101 ; See also Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 ; Kotteakos v. United States (1946), 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 90 L.Ed. 1557, 1566-1567 .

1983State v. LaVe, supra, 174 Mont. at 407 , 571 P.2d at 101 ; See also Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 ; Kotteakos v. United States (1946), 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 90 L.Ed. 1557, 1566-1567 .

1983State v. LaVe, supra, 174 Mont. at 407 , 571 P.2d at 101 ; See also Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 ; Kotteakos v. United States (1946), 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 90 L.Ed. 1557, 1566-1567 .

1978State v. Heiser, (1965), 146 Mont. 413 , 407 P.2d 370 .

1978State v. Heiser, (1965), 146 Mont. 413 , 407 P.2d 370 .

1977State v. Langan, 151 Mont. 558, 568 , 445 P.2d 565 (1968).

1977State v. Langan, 151 Mont. 558, 568 , 445 P.2d 565 (1968).

1974We are impressed with the discussion by the Utah Court in Tom v. Days of ’47, Inc., 16 Utah 2d 386 , 401 P.2d 946, 948 , where that Court said: “Defendant contends that the court committed prejudicial error because it unduly emphasized plaintiff’s theory and practically directed a verdict on the issue of negligence because it instructed the jury that defendant had a duty to construct a fence that would be safe for the purpose for which it was intended, that is, to keep the bull out of the bleachers, and that it had a further duty to use reasonable diligence to in spect the fence to see that it

1974We are impressed with the discussion by the Utah Court in Tom v. Days of ’47, Inc., 16 Utah 2d 386 , 401 P.2d 946, 948 , where that Court said: “Defendant contends that the court committed prejudicial error because it unduly emphasized plaintiff’s theory and practically directed a verdict on the issue of negligence because it instructed the jury that defendant had a duty to construct a fence that would be safe for the purpose for which it was intended, that is, to keep the bull out of the bleachers, and that it had a further duty to use reasonable diligence to in spect the fence to see that it

1971The informer was the only witness in a position to amplify or contradict the testimony of government witnesses. * * * We conclude that, under these circumstances, the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the Government to withhold the identity of its undercover employee in the face of repeated demands by the accused for his disclosure.” Roviaro v. United States, supra, at 353 U.S. 64 , 65, 77 St.Ct. 630. *436 To counter this, the prosecution maintains it is useless to cite the many cases interpreting the Roviaro case, but they do cite this language in McCray v. Illinois, 386 U

1971The informer was the only witness in a position to amplify or contradict the testimony of government witnesses. * * * We conclude that, under these circumstances, the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the Government to withhold the identity of its undercover employee in the face of repeated demands by the accused for his disclosure.” Roviaro v. United States, supra, at 353 U.S. 64 , 65, 77 St.Ct. 630. *436 To counter this, the prosecution maintains it is useless to cite the many cases interpreting the Roviaro case, but they do cite this language in McCray v. Illinois, 386 U

1963O’Connell Ranch Co. v. Great Falls Livestock Comm. Co., 136 Mont. 23 , 343 P.2d 703 .

1963O’Connell Ranch Co. v. Great Falls Livestock Comm. Co., 136 Mont. 23 , 343 P.2d 703 .

1949State v. Schaefer, 35 Mont. 217 , 88 Pac. 792 .” In People v. Snyder, 15 Cal. (2d) 706, 104 Pac. (2d) 639 , a case of attempt to murder, appellant contended that “the trial court committed prejudicial error in charging the jury generally that a person is presumed to intend to do that which he voluntarily and wilfully does in fact do, and is also presumed to intend all the natural, probable and usual consequences of his acts.” The California court there said: “But where, as here, the crime of which the defendant stands convicted, viz., attempted murder, requires proof of a specific intent to ki

1949State v. Schaefer, 35 Mont. 217 , 88 Pac. 792 .” In People v. Snyder, 15 Cal. (2d) 706, 104 Pac. (2d) 639 , a case of attempt to murder, appellant contended that “the trial court committed prejudicial error in charging the jury generally that a person is presumed to intend to do that which he voluntarily and wilfully does in fact do, and is also presumed to intend all the natural, probable and usual consequences of his acts.” The California court there said: “But where, as here, the crime of which the defendant stands convicted, viz., attempted murder, requires proof of a specific intent to ki

1949State v. Schaefer, 35 Mont. 217 , 88 Pac. 792 .” In People v. Snyder, 15 Cal. (2d) 706, 104 Pac. (2d) 639 , a case of attempt to murder, appellant contended that “the trial court committed prejudicial error in charging the jury generally that a person is presumed to intend to do that which he voluntarily and wilfully does in fact do, and is also presumed to intend all the natural, probable and usual consequences of his acts.” The California court there said: “But where, as here, the crime of which the defendant stands convicted, viz., attempted murder, requires proof of a specific intent to ki

1934Co., 45 Mont. 383 , 123 Pac. 397 ; Bickford v. Bickford, 94 Mont. 314 , 22 Pac. (2d) 306 .) We do not find anything in the testimony indicating that the court committed prejudicial error in the terms of the decree upon which specification of error No. 7 is based.

1934Co., 45 Mont. 383 , 123 Pac. 397 ; Bickford v. Bickford, 94 Mont. 314 , 22 Pac. (2d) 306 .) We do not find anything in the testimony indicating that the court committed prejudicial error in the terms of the decree upon which specification of error No. 7 is based.

1934Co., 45 Mont. 383 , 123 Pac. 397 ; Bickford v. Bickford, 94 Mont. 314 , 22 Pac. (2d) 306 .) We do not find anything in the testimony indicating that the court committed prejudicial error in the terms of the decree upon which specification of error No. 7 is based.

1934Co., 45 Mont. 383 , 123 Pac. 397 ; Bickford v. Bickford, 94 Mont. 314 , 22 Pac. (2d) 306 .) We do not find anything in the testimony indicating that the court committed prejudicial error in the terms of the decree upon which specification of error No. 7 is based.

1924(State v. Kremer, 34 Mont. 6 , 85 Pac. 736 .) Finding the assignments of error made by the defendant without merit, the judgment and order are affirmed.

1924(State v. Kremer, 34 Mont. 6 , 85 Pac. 736 .) Finding the assignments of error made by the defendant without merit, the judgment and order are affirmed.

1924(State v. Calder, 23 Mont. 504 , 59 Pac. 903 ; State v. Fisher, 23 Mont. 540 , 59 Pac. 919 ; State v. Howell, 26 Mont. 3 , 66 Pac. 291 ; State v. Shadwell, supra.) Prejudicial error will not be presumed on appeal in a criminal action, the burden resting upon the appellant to affirmatively- point out the error, if any, committed by the trial count.

1924(State v. Calder, 23 Mont. 504 , 59 Pac. 903 ; State v. Fisher, 23 Mont. 540 , 59 Pac. 919 ; State v. Howell, 26 Mont. 3 , 66 Pac. 291 ; State v. Shadwell, supra.) Prejudicial error will not be presumed on appeal in a criminal action, the burden resting upon the appellant to affirmatively- point out the error, if any, committed by the trial count.

1924(State v. Calder, 23 Mont. 504 , 59 Pac. 903 ; State v. Fisher, 23 Mont. 540 , 59 Pac. 919 ; State v. Howell, 26 Mont. 3 , 66 Pac. 291 ; State v. Shadwell, supra.) Prejudicial error will not be presumed on appeal in a criminal action, the burden resting upon the appellant to affirmatively- point out the error, if any, committed by the trial count.

1924(State v. Calder, 23 Mont. 504 , 59 Pac. 903 ; State v. Fisher, 23 Mont. 540 , 59 Pac. 919 ; State v. Howell, 26 Mont. 3 , 66 Pac. 291 ; State v. Shadwell, supra.) Prejudicial error will not be presumed on appeal in a criminal action, the burden resting upon the appellant to affirmatively- point out the error, if any, committed by the trial count.

1924(State v. Calder, 23 Mont. 504 , 59 Pac. 903 ; State v. Fisher, 23 Mont. 540 , 59 Pac. 919 ; State v. Howell, 26 Mont. 3 , 66 Pac. 291 ; State v. Shadwell, supra.) Prejudicial error will not be presumed on appeal in a criminal action, the burden resting upon the appellant to affirmatively- point out the error, if any, committed by the trial count.

1924(State v. Calder, 23 Mont. 504 , 59 Pac. 903 ; State v. Fisher, 23 Mont. 540 , 59 Pac. 919 ; State v. Howell, 26 Mont. 3 , 66 Pac. 291 ; State v. Shadwell, supra.) Prejudicial error will not be presumed on appeal in a criminal action, the burden resting upon the appellant to affirmatively- point out the error, if any, committed by the trial count.

1901The identical question here presented was discussed by this court in State v. Baker, 13 Mont. 160 , 32 Pac. 647 , and decided in favor of the contention now made.

1901The identical question here presented was discussed by this court in State v. Baker, 13 Mont. 160 , 32 Pac. 647 , and decided in favor of the contention now made.

1899Whatever may be the correct rule as to the necessity, in some cases, of giving notice in order to complete a transfer, or to protect or make secure the title of a vendee or assignee, as against a subsequent good-faith purchaser or assignee of the same chattel or interest therein, or of the same chose in action, — a subject upon which the courts hold divergent views (see Graham Paper Co. v. Pembroke [Cal.] 56 Pac. 627 ), — it is not applicable to the facts of the case at bar.