Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 3-15-301 (2026)

Who Competent -- Duty To Serve

✓ current as of May 2026

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

TITLE 3. JUDICIARY, COURTS

CHAPTER 15. JURIES AND JURORS

Part 3. Jurors -- Competency and Excuses

Who Competent -- Duty To Serve

3-15-301. Who competent -- duty to serve. It is the policy of this state that all qualified citizens have an obligation to serve on juries upon being summoned for jury duty, unless excused. Except as provided in 3-15-303, a person is competent to act as a juror if the person is:

(1) 18 years of age or older;

(2) a resident for at least 30 days of the state and of the city, town, or county in which the person is called for jury duty; and

(3) a citizen of the United States.

History: Earlier statutes were Sec. 8, p. 506, Cod. Stat. 1871; amd. Sec. 1, p. 70, L. 1873; re-en. Sec. 780, 5th Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; amd. Sec. 1, p. 57, L. 1881; re-en. Sec. 1304, 5th Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; re-en. Sec. 230, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6337, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 8890, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 198; re-en. Sec. 8890, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 203, L. 1939; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 116, L. 1965; amd. Sec. 20, Ch. 240, L. 1971; amd. Sec. 32, Ch. 94, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 298, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 93-1301; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 441, L. 2003.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). · cites it 2× “425 (1) (2000) Montana 18 Mont. Code Ann. § 3-15-301 (2003) Nebraska 19 Neb.”

Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988). · cites it 2× “Mont. Code Ann. § 3-15-301 (1987) Neb. Neb.”

Eklund v. Wheatland Cnty., 2009 MT 231 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 6× “Section 3-15-302(2), MCA, provides that the inhabitants of the county may serve as jurors if otherwise competent and qualified according to the law when a county is an interested party in a trial. A person is competent to serve on a jury if they are 18 or older, a resident of…”

James Farmer v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “425 (2018); Mont. Code Ann. § 3-15-301 (2018); Neb. Rev.”

State v. Barnes, 758 P.2d 264 (Mont. 1988). “Defendant has failed to show that any of the jurors failed these qualifications and her effort to challenge the whole panel was without merit since she failed to discover any inherent interest or bias held by any of the prospective jurors, as required in Section 46-16-304(2),…”

State v. Joseph Carri Robertson, 2014 MT 279 (Mont. 2014). “Specifically, he points out that the State’s restitution affidavit disclosed that three persons who participated in the jury pool had traveled from addresses outside Jefferson County and thus presumably were not Jefferson County residents.”

State v. D. Burton, 2020 MT 172N (Mont. 2020). · cites it 6× “Burton also raises two issues for the first time on appeal: (1) that his probation officer lacked authority to seize his truck; and (2) that the District Court erred by failing to inform potential jurors of the statutory requirement that jurors be “a resident for at least 30…”

State v. F. Hinkle, 2026 MT 42 (Mont. 2026). · cites it 2× ““If the motion states facts that show that the jury panel has been improperly selected or drawn, it is the duty of the court to conduct a hearing.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-15-301(2) — 2 cases

State v. D. Burton, 2020 MT 172N (Mont. 2020). “Burton also raises two issues for the first time on appeal: (1) that his probation officer lacked authority to seize his truck; and (2) that the District Court erred by failing to inform potential jurors of the statutory requirement that jurors be “a resident for at least 30…”

State v. F. Hinkle, 2026 MT 42 (Mont. 2026). ““If the motion states facts that show that the jury panel has been improperly selected or drawn, it is the duty of the court to conduct a hearing.”

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.