Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 11. COMMENCEMENT OF PROSECUTION · Part 4. The Charge
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-11-404 (2026)

Joinder Of Offenses And Defendants

✓ 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 11
  4. Part 4
  5. 46-11-404 Joinder of offenses and defendants

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 11. COMMENCEMENT OF PROSECUTION

Part 4. The Charge

Joinder Of Offenses And Defendants

46-11-404. Joinder of offenses and defendants. (1) Two or more offenses or different statements of the same offense may be charged in the same charging document in a separate count, or alternatively, if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. Allegations made in one count may be incorporated by reference in another count.

(2) If two or more charging documents are filed in the case, the court may order them to be consolidated.

(3) The prosecution is not required to elect between the different offenses set forth in the charging document, and the defendant may be convicted of any number of the offenses charged except as provided in 46-11-410. Each offense of which the defendant is convicted must be stated in the verdict or the finding of the court.

(4) Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment, information, or complaint if they are alleged to have participated in the same transaction constituting an offense or offenses. The defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately, and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.

History: En. 95-1504 by Sec. 1, Ch. 196, L. 1967; amd. Sec. 19, Ch. 184, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 95-1504(1) thru (4); amd. Sec. 119, Ch. 800, L. 1991.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Freshment, 2002 MT 61 (Mont. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Freshment, 2002 MT 61 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 34× “The District Court denied this motion concluding Freshment did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice to overcome the proper joinder of the charges in the information under § 46-11-404(1), MCA. Further details will be discussed under this issue below.”
State v. Alvin Duncan, 2008 MT 148 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 34× “The District Court denied his motion, holding that the offenses were properly joined under § 46-11-404(1), MCA, and that the consolidation of the charges would not unfairly prejudice Duncan’s defense.”
State v. Hocevar, 2000 MT 157 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 44× “¶128 Montana's joinder statute, § 46-11-404, MCA, provides in relevant part: Joinder of offenses and defendants.”
State v. Blain S., 1999 MT 94 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 27× “Southern asserted that joinder of the counts for trial was not proper under § 46-11-404, MCA, and that he would be unfairly prejudiced if he was tried on all nine counts at one trial.”
State v. C. Ankeny, 2018 MT 91 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 26× “” Rather, the District Court determined the cases “could have been joined in a single information pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 46-11-404 ,” and “[c]onsolidation of the two cases for trial is in the interests of justice, as contemplated by Mont.”
Coleman v. State, 633 P.2d 624 (Mont. 1981). · cites it 16× “The applicable statute, section 46-11-404, MCA, clearly sets out the procedure for the filing of alternative charges, that is, ".”
State v. Campbell, 615 P.2d 190 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 12× “Campbell contends Count II of the information should have been severed from the other counts based on section 46-11-404(4), MCA. That section reads in pertinent part: "If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of related prosecutions .”
State v. Sunday, 609 P.2d 1188 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 12× “Section 46-11-404(1), MCA, provides in part: "An .”
State v. Richards, 906 P.2d 222 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 14× “The District Court determined that joinder was proper in this case under § 46-11-404, MCA, since the economic crimes establish the motive for the homicide and overlapping proof must be offered.”
State v. Strong, 2015 MT 251 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 11× “” That argument is contrary to the plain language of §§ 46-11-404 and 46-11-410, MCA, which specifically allow multiple charges for conduct that is part of the same transaction, unless the offense meets one of five exceptions.”
State v. Bingman, 745 P.2d 342 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 13× “Section 46-11-404, MCA, (1985) reads in pertinent part: “(1) An indictment, information, or complaint may charge two or more different offenses connected together in their commission, different statements of the same offense, or two or more different offenses of the same class…”
Fitzpatrick v. State, 638 P.2d 1002 (Mont. 1981). · cites it 5× “I concluded that the State set the ambiguous verdict question in motion by not following the charging procedure set forth in § 46-11-404(1), MCA — that is, the State could have charged Fitzpatrick in separate counts by setting forth one alternative in each count.”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-11-404(1) — 30 cases
State v. Freshment, 2002 MT 61 (Mont. 2002). “The District Court denied this motion concluding Freshment did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice to overcome the proper joinder of the charges in the information under § 46-11-404(1), MCA. Further details will be discussed under this issue below.”
State v. Alvin Duncan, 2008 MT 148 (Mont. 2008). “The District Court denied his motion, holding that the offenses were properly joined under § 46-11-404(1), MCA, and that the consolidation of the charges would not unfairly prejudice Duncan’s defense.”
State v. Hocevar, 2000 MT 157 (Mont. 2000). “¶128 Montana's joinder statute, § 46-11-404, MCA, provides in relevant part: Joinder of offenses and defendants.”
State v. Blain S., 1999 MT 94 (Mont. 1999). “Southern asserted that joinder of the counts for trial was not proper under § 46-11-404, MCA, and that he would be unfairly prejudiced if he was tried on all nine counts at one trial.”
State v. Sunday, 609 P.2d 1188 (Mont. 1980). “Section 46-11-404(1), MCA, provides in part: "An .”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-11-404(2) — 1 case
State v. Kestner, 713 P.2d 537 (Mont. 1986).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-11-404(3) — 4 cases
State v. Strong, 2015 MT 251 (Mont. 2015). “” That argument is contrary to the plain language of §§ 46-11-404 and 46-11-410, MCA, which specifically allow multiple charges for conduct that is part of the same transaction, unless the offense meets one of five exceptions.”
State v. Daniels, 2017 MT 163 (Mont. 2017).
Thomas L. Zink v. State, 2014 MT 48 (Mont. 2014).
State v. Zink, 2014 MT 48 (Mont. 2014).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-11-404(4) — 8 cases
State v. Campbell, 615 P.2d 190 (Mont. 1980). “Campbell contends Count II of the information should have been severed from the other counts based on section 46-11-404(4), MCA. That section reads in pertinent part: "If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of related prosecutions .”
State v. Enright, 2000 MT 372 (Mont. 2000).
State v. Howie, 744 P.2d 156 (Mont. 1987).
State v. Turner, 864 P.2d 235 (Mont. 1993).
State v. Beverly Irene Strain, 618 P.2d 331 (Mont. 1980).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-11-404(l) — 1 case
State v. Weldy, 902 P.2d 1 (Mont. 1995).
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.