Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-303 (2026)

Instructions To Jury On How To Evaluate Evidence

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 26. EVIDENCE

CHAPTER 1. STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON EVIDENCE

Part 3. Weight and Effect of Evidence

Instructions To Jury On How To Evaluate Evidence

26-1-303. Instructions to jury on how to evaluate evidence. The jury is to be instructed by the court on all proper occasions that:

(1) their power of judging the effect of evidence is not arbitrary but to be exercised with legal discretion and in subordination to the rules of evidence;

(2) they are not bound to decide in conformity with the declarations of any number of witnesses that do not produce conviction in their minds, against a less number or against a presumption or other evidence satisfying their minds;

(3) a witness false in one part of the witness's testimony is to be distrusted in others;

(4) the testimony of a person legally accountable for the acts of the accused ought to be viewed with distrust;

(5) if weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered and it appears that it is within the power of the party to offer stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.

History: En. Sec. 3390, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 8028, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 10672, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 2061; re-en. Sec. 10672, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-2001-1(part)(1) thru (4), (6), (7); amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 72, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 523, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: State v. Jeremiah Green, 2009 MT 114 (Mont. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Jeremiah Green, 2009 MT 114 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 36× “the testimony of a person legally accountable for the acts of the accused ought to be viewed with distrust,” known as an “accomplice instruction.” Green’s trial counsel did not request an accomplice instruction based upon § 26-1-303(4), MCA, that McDonald’s and Gardipee’s…”

State v. Newman, 2005 MT 348 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 57× “Section 26-1-303, MCA. 22 apparent on the record or a statement on the record from defense counsel specifically declining such an instruction, the language of § 26-1-303(4), MCA, requires that when a witness purports to have been an accomplice of the accused, effective defense…”

State v. Allen, 2010 MT 214 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 14× “However, under § 26-1-303(4), MCA, it is error for a district court to fail to give an instruction on accomplice testimony when (1) an accomplice gives direct testimony, (2) the defendant requests such an instruction, and (3) the instruction is not inconsistent with the…”

State v. Kougl, 2004 MT 243 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 7× “Defense counsel did not, however, ask the court to instruct the jury that under § 26-1-303(4), MCA, the testimony of persons such as the accomplices-that is, those who are legally accountable for the defendant’s conduct-ought to be viewed with distrust, or that under §…”

State v. Kougl, 2004 MT 243 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 7× “Defense counsel did not, however, ask the court to instruct the jury that under § 26-1-303(4), MCA, the testimony of persons such as the accomplicesthat is, those who are legally accountable for the defendant's conduct ought to be viewed with distrust, or that under §…”

State v. Charlo-Whitworth, 2016 MT 157 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 16× “Whitworth proposed jury instructions directing the jury to view the aunt and uncle’s testimony with distrust, pursuant to § 26-1-303(4), MCA, which provides that the “testimony of a person legally accountable for the acts of the accused ought to be viewed with distrust.”

State v. Liddell, 685 P.2d 918 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 6× “Section 26-1-303, MCA, deals with instructions to juries on how to evaluate evidence.”

Mickelson v. Montana Rail Link, Inc., 2000 MT 111 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 8× “¶ 69 Since a witness false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others, § 26-1-303(3), MCA, the jury should have been allowed to disbelieve the crew's testimony that WT 20 must have turned around after filling at the hydrant rather than before, as was Jim's…”

State v. Daniels, 682 P.2d 173 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 6× “Section 26-1-303(5), MCA. That, however, is not the portent of the offered instruction here.”

State v. Hall, 2003 MT 253 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 4× “¶27 Although rejecting atheoxy of accountability, Hall still wanted the jury instructed to view with distrust the testimony of someone legally accountable for the act of the accused, in accordance with § 26-1-303(4), MCA. ¶28 The District Court rejected the instructions and…”

State v. Chafee, 2014 MT 226 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 4× “Unlike our prior cases where we utilized this exception to review direct appeal claims of IAC for failure to offer a proposed jury instruction, Chafee cannot establish that she was entitled to a “mere presence” instruction. See Kougl, ¶ 20 (failure to request an instruction to…”

State v. Forsyth, 642 P.2d 1035 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 6× “Under section 26-1-303, MCA, relating to instructions to the jury on how to evaluate evidence, it is required that the jury be instructed by the court on all proper occasions "that the testimony of an accomplice ought to be viewed with distrust.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-303(3) — 2 cases

Mickelson v. Montana Rail Link, Inc., 2000 MT 111 (Mont. 2000). “¶ 69 Since a witness false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others, § 26-1-303(3), MCA, the jury should have been allowed to disbelieve the crew's testimony that WT 20 must have turned around after filling at the hydrant rather than before, as was Jim's…”

KB Enters., LLC v. Mont. Human Rights Comm'n, 443 P.3d 498 (Mont. 2019).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-303(4) — 19 cases

State v. Jeremiah Green, 2009 MT 114 (Mont. 2009). “the testimony of a person legally accountable for the acts of the accused ought to be viewed with distrust,” known as an “accomplice instruction.” Green’s trial counsel did not request an accomplice instruction based upon § 26-1-303(4), MCA, that McDonald’s and Gardipee’s…”

State v. Newman, 2005 MT 348 (Mont. 2005). “Section 26-1-303, MCA. 22 apparent on the record or a statement on the record from defense counsel specifically declining such an instruction, the language of § 26-1-303(4), MCA, requires that when a witness purports to have been an accomplice of the accused, effective defense…”

State v. Allen, 2010 MT 214 (Mont. 2010). “However, under § 26-1-303(4), MCA, it is error for a district court to fail to give an instruction on accomplice testimony when (1) an accomplice gives direct testimony, (2) the defendant requests such an instruction, and (3) the instruction is not inconsistent with the…”

State v. Kougl, 2004 MT 243 (Mont. 2004). “Defense counsel did not, however, ask the court to instruct the jury that under § 26-1-303(4), MCA, the testimony of persons such as the accomplices-that is, those who are legally accountable for the defendant’s conduct-ought to be viewed with distrust, or that under §…”

State v. Kougl, 2004 MT 243 (Mont. 2004). “Defense counsel did not, however, ask the court to instruct the jury that under § 26-1-303(4), MCA, the testimony of persons such as the accomplicesthat is, those who are legally accountable for the defendant's conduct ought to be viewed with distrust, or that under §…”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-303(5) — 2 cases

State v. Daniels, 682 P.2d 173 (Mont. 1984). “Section 26-1-303(5), MCA. That, however, is not the portent of the offered instruction here.”

State v. Bauer, 2002 MT 7 (Mont. 2002).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.