double jeopardy clause in Montana

2005I submit the Court errs in doing so. ¶18 The Court concedes, as it must, that, under Guillaume, enhancement of a felony assault sentence for use of a weapon violates the double jeopardy clause. 293 Mont. 224 , 975 P.2d 312 .

2005I submit the Court errs in doing so. ¶18 The Court concedes, as it must, that, under Guillaume, enhancement of a felony assault sentence for use of a weapon violates the double jeopardy clause. 293 Mont. 224 , 975 P.2d 312 .

2007Cech contends that his prosecution was barred under (1) Montana’s double jeopardy statute, § 46-11-504, MCA; (2) the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because the theft offense has the same elements as the Washington possession of stolen property offense, thus satisfying the elements test set out in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 (1932); and (3) Article II, Section 25, of the Montana Constitution. ¶12 The State responds that its prosecution of theft of the vehicle was not precluded by Washington’s previous prosecution under any

2007Cech contends that his prosecution was barred under (1) Montana’s double jeopardy statute, § 46-11-504, MCA; (2) the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because the theft offense has the same elements as the Washington possession of stolen property offense, thus satisfying the elements test set out in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 (1932); and (3) Article II, Section 25, of the Montana Constitution. ¶12 The State responds that its prosecution of theft of the vehicle was not precluded by Washington’s previous prosecution under any

1999Justice Scalia points out that the belief that there is a multiple-punishment component to the double jeopardy clause can be traced to dictum in Ex parte Lange (1874), 18 Wall. 163 , 21 L.Ed. 872 , but that it was not until United States v. Halper (1989), 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 , that the Court actually invalidated a legislatively authorized successive punishment on the basis of the this dictum.

1999Justice Scalia points out that the belief that there is a multiple-punishment component to the double jeopardy clause can be traced to dictum in Ex parte Lange (1874), 18 Wall. 163 , 21 L.Ed. 872 , but that it was not until United States v. Halper (1989), 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 , that the Court actually invalidated a legislatively authorized successive punishment on the basis of the this dictum.

1990United States v. Dinitz (1976), 424 U.S. 600, 611 , 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1081 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267, 276 .

1990United States v. Dinitz (1976), 424 U.S. 600, 611 , 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1081 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267, 276 .

2024However, in State v. Cech, 2007 MT 184 , 338 Mont. 330 , 167 P.3d 389 , we held that a double jeopardy challenge was not waived when the court, at the time it accepts the guilty plea, has a sufficient record to determine whether the government lacked the power to bring the charges at issue due to constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.

2024However, in State v. Cech, 2007 MT 184 , 338 Mont. 330 , 167 P.3d 389 , we held that a double jeopardy challenge was not waived when the court, at the time it accepts the guilty plea, has a sufficient record to determine whether the government lacked the power to bring the charges at issue due to constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.

2021Whether Valenzuela’s counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Valenzuela’s convictions based on a double jeopardy violation. ¶29 This Court reviews claims of ineffective assistance of counsel through the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984).

2021Whether Valenzuela’s counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Valenzuela’s convictions based on a double jeopardy violation. ¶29 This Court reviews claims of ineffective assistance of counsel through the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984).

2000In Anderson, we did not consider a due process challenge, but decided the issue solely pursuant to the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. ¶100 We have previously held that a convicted defendant “ ‘has a due process guarantee against a sentence predicated on misinformation.’ ” Bauer v. State, 1999 MT 185, ¶ 21 , 295 Mont. 306, ¶ 21 , 983 P.2d 955, ¶ 21 (citing State v. Orsborn (1976), 170 Mont. 480, 486 , 555 P.2d 509, 513 ).

2000In Anderson, we did not consider a due process challenge, but decided the issue solely pursuant to the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. ¶100 We have previously held that a convicted defendant “ ‘has a due process guarantee against a sentence predicated on misinformation.’ ” Bauer v. State, 1999 MT 185, ¶ 21 , 295 Mont. 306, ¶ 21 , 983 P.2d 955, ¶ 21 (citing State v. Orsborn (1976), 170 Mont. 480, 486 , 555 P.2d 509, 513 ).

2000Egelhoff, 272 Mont. at 126 , 900 P.2d at 267 (citing Teague, 489 U.S. at 310-11 , 109 S.Ct. at 1076 ). ¶21 In Nichols , we refused to retroactively apply to Nichols’ case the new rule declared in State v. Guillaume, 1999 MT 29 , 293 Mont. 224 , 975 P.2d 312 , which afforded broader protection under the Montana Constitution than the double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution with respect to weapons enhancement.

2000Egelhoff, 272 Mont. at 126 , 900 P.2d at 267 (citing Teague, 489 U.S. at 310-11 , 109 S.Ct. at 1076 ). ¶21 In Nichols , we refused to retroactively apply to Nichols’ case the new rule declared in State v. Guillaume, 1999 MT 29 , 293 Mont. 224 , 975 P.2d 312 , which afforded broader protection under the Montana Constitution than the double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution with respect to weapons enhancement.

1999Specifically, we were bound to follow Missouri v. Hunter (1983), 459 U.S. 359 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 , wherein the United States Supreme Court held that, where legislative intent is clear, cumulative punishments imposed in a single trial do not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

1999Specifically, we were bound to follow Missouri v. Hunter (1983), 459 U.S. 359 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 , wherein the United States Supreme Court held that, where legislative intent is clear, cumulative punishments imposed in a single trial do not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

1998Until joinder became permissible and commonplace, however, multiple punishment could result only from multiple trials.’” Koonce, 945 F.2d at 1149 , quoting Comment, Twice Put in Jeopardy, 75 Yale L.J. 262 , 266 n.13 (1965). ¶37 In a related vein, this Court has previously acknowledged “a trend in prosecutions to use multiple count pleadings,” prompting our admonishment that “[p]rosecutors and trial courts should note the limitations and spirit behind the double jeopardy clause so that they may avoid potential constitutional problems.” State v. Lindseth (1983), 203 Mont. 115, 117 , 659 P.2d 844

1998Until joinder became permissible and commonplace, however, multiple punishment could result only from multiple trials.’” Koonce, 945 F.2d at 1149 , quoting Comment, Twice Put in Jeopardy, 75 Yale L.J. 262 , 266 n.13 (1965). ¶37 In a related vein, this Court has previously acknowledged “a trend in prosecutions to use multiple count pleadings,” prompting our admonishment that “[p]rosecutors and trial courts should note the limitations and spirit behind the double jeopardy clause so that they may avoid potential constitutional problems.” State v. Lindseth (1983), 203 Mont. 115, 117 , 659 P.2d 844

1993Since Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 [ 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 ] (1969), the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment as a “fundamental right.” In this bench trial case, jeopardy attached when the first State’s witness was sworn by the Justice of the Peace. [See] Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 [ 98 S.Ct. 2156 , 57 L.Ed.2d 24 ] (1978).

1993Since Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 [ 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 ] (1969), the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment as a “fundamental right.” In this bench trial case, jeopardy attached when the first State’s witness was sworn by the Justice of the Peace. [See] Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 [ 98 S.Ct. 2156 , 57 L.Ed.2d 24 ] (1978).

1986The purposes of the double jeopardy clause “would be negated were we to afford the government an opportunity for the proverbial ‘second bite of the apple.’ ” Burks v. United States (1978), 437 U.S. 1, 17 , 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2150 . 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 13 . *193 In conclusion, the State’s prosecution of Hall in the original trial, on a charge of incest, bars Hall’s retrial on a charge of sexual assault.

1986The purposes of the double jeopardy clause “would be negated were we to afford the government an opportunity for the proverbial ‘second bite of the apple.’ ” Burks v. United States (1978), 437 U.S. 1, 17 , 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2150 . 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 13 . *193 In conclusion, the State’s prosecution of Hall in the original trial, on a charge of incest, bars Hall’s retrial on a charge of sexual assault.

1980A third approach, and one reached after the decision in Pearce, is that taken by the Alaska Supreme Court in Shagloak v. State (Alaska ), 597 P.2d 142 .

1980A third approach, and one reached after the decision in Pearce , is that taken by the Alaska Supreme Court in Shagloak v. State (Alaska 1979), 597 P.2d 142 .

2025Accordingly, we proceed to address the merits of Wood’s claim. ¶9 “A district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss criminal charges on double jeopardy grounds presents a question of law, which we review for correctness.” State v. Stone, 2017 MT 189, ¶ 10 , 388 Mont. 239 , 400 P.3d 692 .

2025Accordingly, we proceed to address the merits of Wood’s claim. ¶9 “A district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss criminal charges on double jeopardy grounds presents a question of law, which we review for correctness.” State v. Stone, 2017 MT 189, ¶ 10 , 388 Mont. 239 , 400 P.3d 692 .

2025The focus of the double jeopardy inquiry is whether, in overturning Wood’s conviction, this Court “acted on its view that the prosecution had failed to prove 6 its case.” McElrath, 601 U.S. at 96 , 144 S. Ct. at 660 (citation omitted).

2024State v. Duncan, 2012 MT 241, ¶ 5 , 366 Mont. 443 , 291 P.3d 106 . ¶17 “We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Smith, 2021 MT 148 , ¶ 14, 404 Mont. 245 , 488 P.3d 531 .

2024State v. Duncan, 2012 MT 241, ¶ 5 , 366 Mont. 443 , 291 P.3d 106 . ¶17 “We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Smith, 2021 MT 148 , ¶ 14, 404 Mont. 245 , 488 P.3d 531 .

2024State v. Duncan, 2012 MT 241, ¶ 5 , 366 Mont. 443 , 291 P.3d 106 . ¶17 “We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Smith, 2021 MT 148 , ¶ 14, 404 Mont. 245 , 488 P.3d 531 .

2024State v. Duncan, 2012 MT 241, ¶ 5 , 366 Mont. 443 , 291 P.3d 106 . ¶17 “We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Smith, 2021 MT 148 , ¶ 14, 404 Mont. 245 , 488 P.3d 531 .