Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 13. PRETRIAL MOTIONS · Part 1. General Provisions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110 (2026)

Omnibus Hearing -- Use Of Two-Way Electronic Audio Or Video Communication

✓ 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 13
  4. Part 1
  5. 46-13-110 Omnibus hearing -- use of two-way electronic audio or video communication

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 13. PRETRIAL MOTIONS

Part 1. General Provisions

Omnibus Hearing -- Use Of Two-Way Electronic Audio Or Video Communication

46-13-110. Omnibus hearing -- use of two-way electronic audio or video communication. (1) Within a reasonable time following the entry of a not guilty plea but not less than 30 days before trial, the court shall hold an omnibus hearing.

(2) The purpose of the hearing is to expedite the procedures leading up to the trial of the defendant.

(3) The presence of the defendant is not required, unless ordered by the court. The prosecutor and the defendant's counsel shall attend the hearing. The prosecutor and the defendant or defendant's counsel may attend the hearing by two-way electronic audio or video communication if neither party objects and the court agrees to its use. The parties must be prepared to discuss any pretrial matter appropriate to the case, including but not limited to:

(a) joinder and severance of offenses or defendants, 46-11-404, 46-13-210, and 46-13-211;

(b) double jeopardy, 46-11-410, 46-11-503, and 46-11-504;

(c) the need for exclusion of the public and for sealing records of any pretrial proceedings, 46-11-701;

(d) notification of the existence of a plea agreement, 46-12-211;

(e) disclosure and discovery motions, Title 46, chapter 15, part 3;

(f) notice of reliance on certain defenses, 46-15-323;

(g) notice of seeking persistent felony offender status, 46-13-108;

(h) motion to suppress, 46-13-301 and 46-13-302;

(i) motion to dismiss, 46-13-401 and 46-13-402;

(j) motion for change of place of trial, 46-13-203 through 46-13-205;

(k) reasonableness of bail, Title 46, chapter 9; and

(l) stipulations.

(4) At the conclusion of the hearing, a court-approved memorandum of the matters settled must be signed by the court and counsel and filed with the court.

(5) Any motions made pursuant to subsections (1) through (3) may be ruled on by the court at the time of the hearing, where appropriate, or may be scheduled for briefing and further hearing as the court considers necessary.

History: En. Sec. 170, Ch. 800, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 24, Ch. 262, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 11, Ch. 557, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 130, L. 2011; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 286, L. 2019.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: State v. Couture, 2010 MT 201 (Mont. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Couture, 2010 MT 201 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 28× “" Section 46-13-110(1), MCA. If the defendant refuses to provide a waiver, then the court leaves the trial date set at 180 days from the initial appearance.”
State v. Sullivan, 880 P.2d 829 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 24× “Did the District Court err in failing to hold an omnibus hearing at least 30 days prior to trial pursuant to § 46-13-110, MCA, thereby prejudicing defendant? 2.”
State v. Rose, 2009 MT 4 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 10× “" Section 46-13-110(1), (2), MCA. At this point in time, the parties should have a good idea of whether a trial is "necessary.”
State v. Clary, 2012 MT 26 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 8× “Accordingly, Ciar/s omnibus hearing did not create the potential for substantial prejudice and did not constitute a critical stage requiring Clary’s presence.”
State v. C. Ankeny, 2018 MT 91 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 10× “In its memorandum for the first case, the State indicated no pretrial motions would be filed, including those listed in § 46-13-110, MCA, which includes joinder under § 46-11-404, MCA.”
State v. VonBergen, 2003 MT 265 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 7× “] Second, § 46-13-110, MCA, which governs the omnibus hearing, mandates that counsel for both parties “must be prepared to discuss” motions to suppress at the omnibus hearing, and provides that the district court may rule on the motion at the hearing, or may schedule the matter…”
State v. Dist. Court of the Eighteenth Jud. Dist. of Montana, 2010 MT 263 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 4× “In 1991, the Legislature enacted § 46-13-110, MCA, which established omnibus hearings and also codified Just’s notice requirement.”
State v. Heavygun, 2011 MT 111 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 8× “Section 46-13-110 MCA providing for the omnibus hearing specifically provides that ‘[T]he presence of the Defendant is not *415 required, unless ordered by the Court.”
State v. Adkins, 2009 MT 71 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 5× “econd omnibus hearing upon Adkins’s arraignment on an alternative charge where the factual basis for the alternative charge was the same as the factual basis for the initial charges? ¶14 Section 46-13-110(1), MCA, provides that the District Court shall hold an omnibus hearing…”
State v. Allum, 2005 MT 150 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 4× “¶ 40 Finally, Allum points to the fact that the Municipal Court did not hold an omnibus hearing, as required by § 46-13-110, MCA. This Court will not reverse a *241 conviction for failure to hold an omnibus hearing without a showing of prejudice.”
State v. Cotterell, 2008 MT 409 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 4× “The only issues raised by Cotterell at the omnibus hearing related to the suppression of evidence. Moreover, he was required to file any additional motions by October 7, 2005.”
State v. Parks, 2013 MT 280 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 4× “(1) When the same transaction may establish the commission of more than one offense, a person charged with the conduct may be prosecuted for each offense.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110(1) — 5 cases
State v. Couture, 2010 MT 201 (Mont. 2010). “" Section 46-13-110(1), MCA. If the defendant refuses to provide a waiver, then the court leaves the trial date set at 180 days from the initial appearance.”
State v. Rose, 2009 MT 4 (Mont. 2009). “" Section 46-13-110(1), (2), MCA. At this point in time, the parties should have a good idea of whether a trial is "necessary.”
State v. Adkins, 2009 MT 71 (Mont. 2009). “econd omnibus hearing upon Adkins’s arraignment on an alternative charge where the factual basis for the alternative charge was the same as the factual basis for the initial charges? ¶14 Section 46-13-110(1), MCA, provides that the District Court shall hold an omnibus hearing…”
State v. Hildreth, 884 P.2d 771 (Mont. 1994).
State v. J. Anderson, 2025 MT 189 (Mont. 2025).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110(2) — 6 cases
State v. Clary, 2012 MT 26 (Mont. 2012). “Accordingly, Ciar/s omnibus hearing did not create the potential for substantial prejudice and did not constitute a critical stage requiring Clary’s presence.”
State v. VonBergen, 2003 MT 265 (Mont. 2003). “] Second, § 46-13-110, MCA, which governs the omnibus hearing, mandates that counsel for both parties “must be prepared to discuss” motions to suppress at the omnibus hearing, and provides that the district court may rule on the motion at the hearing, or may schedule the matter…”
State v. Greywater, 939 P.2d 975 (Mont. 1997).
State v. Greywater, 939 P.2d 975 (Mont. 1997).
State v. Cotterell, 2008 MT 409 (Mont. 2008). “The only issues raised by Cotterell at the omnibus hearing related to the suppression of evidence. Moreover, he was required to file any additional motions by October 7, 2005.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110(3) — 9 cases
State v. Rose, 2009 MT 4 (Mont. 2009). “" Section 46-13-110(1), (2), MCA. At this point in time, the parties should have a good idea of whether a trial is "necessary.”
State v. Clary, 2012 MT 26 (Mont. 2012). “Accordingly, Ciar/s omnibus hearing did not create the potential for substantial prejudice and did not constitute a critical stage requiring Clary’s presence.”
State v. VonBergen, 2003 MT 265 (Mont. 2003). “] Second, § 46-13-110, MCA, which governs the omnibus hearing, mandates that counsel for both parties “must be prepared to discuss” motions to suppress at the omnibus hearing, and provides that the district court may rule on the motion at the hearing, or may schedule the matter…”
State v. Cotterell, 2008 MT 409 (Mont. 2008). “The only issues raised by Cotterell at the omnibus hearing related to the suppression of evidence. Moreover, he was required to file any additional motions by October 7, 2005.”
State v. Grixti, 2005 MT 296 (Mont. 2005).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. C. Ankeny, 2018 MT 91 (Mont. 2018). “In its memorandum for the first case, the State indicated no pretrial motions would be filed, including those listed in § 46-13-110, MCA, which includes joinder under § 46-11-404, MCA.”
State v. C. Ankeny, 2018 MT 91 (Mont. 2018).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Parks, 2013 MT 280 (Mont. 2013). “(1) When the same transaction may establish the commission of more than one offense, a person charged with the conduct may be prosecuted for each offense.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110(3)(e) — 1 case
State v. Rose, 2009 MT 4 (Mont. 2009). “" Section 46-13-110(1), (2), MCA. At this point in time, the parties should have a good idea of whether a trial is "necessary.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110(3)(f) — 2 cases
State v. Couture, 2010 MT 201 (Mont. 2010). “" Section 46-13-110(1), MCA. If the defendant refuses to provide a waiver, then the court leaves the trial date set at 180 days from the initial appearance.”
State v. S. Pelletier, 2020 MT 249 (Mont. 2020).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110(3)(g) — 1 case
State v. Potter, 2008 MT 381 (Mont. 2008).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110(3)(h) — 3 cases
State v. Dist. Court of the Eighteenth Jud. Dist. of Montana, 2010 MT 263 (Mont. 2010). “In 1991, the Legislature enacted § 46-13-110, MCA, which established omnibus hearings and also codified Just’s notice requirement.”
State v. Hildreth, 884 P.2d 771 (Mont. 1994).
State v. Giacomini, 2014 MT 93 (Mont. 2014).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-110(3)(i) — 2 cases
State v. Couture, 2010 MT 201 (Mont. 2010). “" Section 46-13-110(1), MCA. If the defendant refuses to provide a waiver, then the court leaves the trial date set at 180 days from the initial appearance.”
State v. Griffing, 1998 MT 75 (Mont. 1998).
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.