presentence hearing in Montana

2011A convicted defendant does not have an unfettered right to cross-examine witnesses during a sentencing hearing. “[T]he right of cross-examination at a presentence hearing is a discretionary matter of the trial court and will not be overruled without a showing of abuse of that discretion.” State v. Trangsrud, 200 Mont. 303,307-08 , 651 P.2d 37, 39-40 (1982) (citing Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247 , 69 S. Ct. 1079, 1083 (1949)).

2011A convicted defendant does not have an unfettered right to cross-examine witnesses during a sentencing hearing. “[T]he right of cross-examination at a presentence hearing is a discretionary matter of the trial court and will not be overruled without a showing of abuse of that discretion.” State v. Trangsrud, 200 Mont. 303,307-08 , 651 P.2d 37, 39-40 (1982) (citing Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247 , 69 S. Ct. 1079, 1083 (1949)).

2000See State v. McPherson (1989), 236 Mont. 484, 490 , 771 P.2d 120, 124 (citations omitted). ¶101 In Orsborn , which we cited with approval in Bauer , we held that a sentencing judge could rely on facts outside of the presentence report in determining defendant’s sentence, provided that the defendant was given an opportunity to explain or rebut that information at the presentence hearing.

2000See State v. McPherson (1989), 236 Mont. 484, 490 , 771 P.2d 120, 124 (citations omitted). ¶101 In Orsborn , which we cited with approval in Bauer , we held that a sentencing judge could rely on facts outside of the presentence report in determining defendant’s sentence, provided that the defendant was given an opportunity to explain or rebut that information at the presentence hearing.

1988See State v. Orsborn (1976), 170 Mont. 480 , 555 P.2d 509 . “[T]he right of cross-examination at a presentence hearing is a discretionary matter of the trial court and will not be overruled without a showing of abuse of that discretion.” State v. Trangsrud (1982), 200 Mont. 303, 307 , 651 P.2d 37, 39 ; see also Section 46-18-113(1), MCA.

1988See State v. Orsborn (1976), 170 Mont. 480 , 555 P.2d 509 . “[T]he right of cross-examination at a presentence hearing is a discretionary matter of the trial court and will not be overruled without a showing of abuse of that discretion.” State v. Trangsrud (1982), 200 Mont. 303, 307 , 651 P.2d 37, 39 ; see also Section 46-18-113(1), MCA.

2011The ‘latitude of cross-examination is in the discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not interfere unless it is manifest that the trial court abused its discretion.” State v. Atlas, 224 Mont. 92, 101 , 728 P.2d 421, 427 (1986).

2011The ‘latitude of cross-examination is in the discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not interfere unless it is manifest that the trial court abused its discretion.” State v. Atlas, 224 Mont. 92, 101 , 728 P.2d 421, 427 (1986).

2011A convicted defendant does not have an unfettered right to cross-examine witnesses during a sentencing hearing. “[T]he right of cross-examination at a presentence hearing is a discretionary matter of the trial court and will not be overruled without a showing of abuse of that discretion.” State v. Trangsrud, 200 Mont. 303,307-08 , 651 P.2d 37, 39-40 (1982) (citing Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247 , 69 S. Ct. 1079, 1083 (1949)).

2011A convicted defendant does not have an unfettered right to cross-examine witnesses during a sentencing hearing. “[T]he right of cross-examination at a presentence hearing is a discretionary matter of the trial court and will not be overruled without a showing of abuse of that discretion.” State v. Trangsrud, 200 Mont. 303,307-08 , 651 P.2d 37, 39-40 (1982) (citing Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247 , 69 S. Ct. 1079, 1083 (1949)).

1999Redding, 208 Mont. at 30 , 675 P.2d at 977; State v. Pearson (1985), 217 Mont. 363, 368-69 , 704 P.2d 1056, 1060 . ¶23 In Orsborn , for example, we concluded that the defendant’s due process rights had not been violated when the sentencing judge referred to facts outside of the presentence investigation report at a presentence hearing, but provided the defendant an opportunity to explain or rebut that information at the hearing.

1999Redding, 208 Mont. at 30 , 675 P.2d at 977; State v. Pearson (1985), 217 Mont. 363, 368-69 , 704 P.2d 1056, 1060 . ¶23 In Orsborn , for example, we concluded that the defendant’s due process rights had not been violated when the sentencing judge referred to facts outside of the presentence investigation report at a presentence hearing, but provided the defendant an opportunity to explain or rebut that information at the hearing.

1981“We think, it not without some significance that the pertinent Missouri statute itself speaks specifically of the presentence hearing in terms of a continuing ‘trial.’ Section 565.006.2 states that after the verdict of guilty of capital murder is returned, ‘the court shall resume the trial and conduct a presentence hearing.’ (Emphasis added.)” Bullington, 451 U.S. at 438, n.10 , 101 S.Ct. at 1858, n.10, 68 L.Ed.2d at 279, n.10 .

1981“We think, it not without some significance that the pertinent Missouri statute itself speaks specifically of the presentence hearing in terms of a continuing ‘trial.’ Section 565.006.2 states that after the verdict of guilty of capital murder is returned, ‘the court shall resume the trial and conduct a presentence hearing.’ (Emphasis added.)” Bullington, 451 U.S. at 438, n.10 , 101 S.Ct. at 1858, n.10, 68 L.Ed.2d at 279, n.10 .