Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS · Part 2. Definitions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-1-201 (2026)

Repealed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 46
  3. CHAPTER 1
  4. Part 2
  5. 46-1-201 Repealed

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Part 2. Definitions

Repealed

46-1-201. Repealed. Sec. 263, Ch. 800, L. 1991.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 196, L. 1967; R.C.M. 1947, 95-201, 95-203, 95-204, 95-205, 95-206, 95-207, 95-208, 95-209, 95-210, 95-211.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case: State v. Barron, 2008 MT 69 (Mont. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Barron, 2008 MT 69 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 10× “The District Court noted that this conclusion was consistent with the statutory definition of a "new trial" wherein this term is defined as a "reexamination of the issue in the same court before another jury after a verdict or finding has been rendered.”
State v. Kelly, 668 P.2d 1032 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 6× “It is also true that under section 46-1-201(7), MCA, the offenses stated in the affidavit must be violations of the laws of this state or its political subdivisions.”
Ingersoll v. State, 1999 MT 215 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 14× “¶ 19 Ingersoll points out in this regard that § 46-1-201(9), MCA (1989), defined "sentence" as "the punishment imposed on the defendant by the court" and argues that punishment means, essentially, imprisonment.”
State v. Rogers, 883 P.2d 115 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 6× “Section 46-1-201(10), MCA. Therefore, any amendment to that sentence is no less an amendment to the court's judgment, and defendant's right to appeal from the amendment is no less important than his right to appeal from the original judgment.”
Bingman v. State, 2005 MT 272 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 6× “Once a defendant produces such direct evidence, the burden then shifts to the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it did not obtain the prior conviction in violation of the defendant’s rights. (Internal citations omitted.”
State v. Hoffman, 2003 MT 26 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 2× “¶ 66 The italicized portion of counsel's argument obviously refers to § 46-1-201(8)(a), MCA. The remainder of his argument related to subparagraph (c).”
City of Billings v. Whalen, 790 P.2d 471 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 3× “Section 46-1-201, MCA, defines judgment as “an adjudication by the court that the defendant is guilty or not guilty .”
State v. Rice, 910 P.2d 245 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 3× “Since he appealed within this time, he contends that this Court retains jurisdiction. Rice urges this Court to interpret “sentence” as synonymous with “punishment,” and we acknowledge that such an interpretation formerly was correct.”
State v. Larson, 623 P.2d 954 (Mont. 1981). “Having been charged with the particular crimes, defendant is recognized as an accused on this date whereupon the speedy trial clock begins to run.”
State v. Wilson, 827 P.2d 1286 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 3× “” Final judgment in this case had not been rendered. The Justice Court orally pronounced defendant guilty and ordered her to obtain an alcohol evaluation at her own expense.”
State v. Heylmun, 708 P.2d 778 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “Mont. Code Ann. § 46-1-201 (7) (1983) provides that “ ‘[ojffense’ means a violation of any penal statute of this state .”
State v. I. Pehringer, 2023 MT 146 (Mont. 2023). · cites it 2× “Perhringer does challenge the legality of the condition, and thus the parties argue at length over the meaning of the term “levied” in this context.4 ¶20 Section 46-18-236, MCA, does not further define or explain its use of the term “levied” in its imposition of “the greater of…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-1-201(1) — 1 case
State v. Larson, 623 P.2d 954 (Mont. 1981). “Having been charged with the particular crimes, defendant is recognized as an accused on this date whereupon the speedy trial clock begins to run.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-1-201(10) — 1 case
State v. Rogers, 883 P.2d 115 (Mont. 1994). “Section 46-1-201(10), MCA. Therefore, any amendment to that sentence is no less an amendment to the court's judgment, and defendant's right to appeal from the amendment is no less important than his right to appeal from the original judgment.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-1-201(13) — 1 case
State v. Barron, 2008 MT 69 (Mont. 2008). “The District Court noted that this conclusion was consistent with the statutory definition of a "new trial" wherein this term is defined as a "reexamination of the issue in the same court before another jury after a verdict or finding has been rendered.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-1-201(5) — 1 case
State v. Wilson, 827 P.2d 1286 (Mont. 1992). “” Final judgment in this case had not been rendered. The Justice Court orally pronounced defendant guilty and ordered her to obtain an alcohol evaluation at her own expense.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-1-201(7) — 2 cases
State v. Kelly, 668 P.2d 1032 (Mont. 1983). “It is also true that under section 46-1-201(7), MCA, the offenses stated in the affidavit must be violations of the laws of this state or its political subdivisions.”
Bingman v. State, 2005 MT 272 (Mont. 2005). “Once a defendant produces such direct evidence, the burden then shifts to the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it did not obtain the prior conviction in violation of the defendant’s rights. (Internal citations omitted.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-1-201(8)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hoffman, 2003 MT 26 (Mont. 2003). “¶ 66 The italicized portion of counsel's argument obviously refers to § 46-1-201(8)(a), MCA. The remainder of his argument related to subparagraph (c).”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-1-201(9) — 2 cases
Ingersoll v. State, 1999 MT 215 (Mont. 1999). “¶ 19 Ingersoll points out in this regard that § 46-1-201(9), MCA (1989), defined "sentence" as "the punishment imposed on the defendant by the court" and argues that punishment means, essentially, imprisonment.”
State v. Rice, 910 P.2d 245 (Mont. 1996). “Since he appealed within this time, he contends that this Court retains jurisdiction. Rice urges this Court to interpret “sentence” as synonymous with “punishment,” and we acknowledge that such an interpretation formerly was correct.”
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.