Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-401 (2026)

Dismissal At Instance Of Court Or Prosecution

✓ current as of May 2026

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

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 13. PRETRIAL MOTIONS

Part 4. Motion for Dismissal

Dismissal At Instance Of Court Or Prosecution

46-13-401. Dismissal at instance of court or prosecution. (1) The court may, either on its own motion or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney and in furtherance of justice, order a complaint, information, or indictment to be dismissed. However, the court may not order a dismissal of a complaint, information, or indictment, or a count contained in a complaint, information, or indictment, charging a felony, unless good cause for dismissal is shown and the reasons for the dismissal are set forth in an order entered upon the minutes.

(2) After the entry of a plea upon a misdemeanor charge, the court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the prosecution to be dismissed, with prejudice, if a defendant whose trial has not been postponed upon the defendant's motion is not brought to trial within 6 months.

History: En. 95-1703 by Sec. 1, Ch. 196, L. 1967; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 173, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 95-1703; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 606, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 178, Ch. 800, L. 1991; Sec. 46-13-201, MCA 1989; redes. 46-13-401 by Code Commissioner, 1991.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 69 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: State v. Strizich, 952 P.2d 1365 (Mont. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Strizich, 952 P.2d 1365 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 56× “Strizich cross-appeals from the District Court's denial of his motion to dismiss for failure to provide him with a timely trial in compliance with § 46-13-401(2), MCA. We reverse the District Court's denial of Strizich's motion to dismiss and, therefore, decline to discuss the…”

State v. Bullock, 901 P.2d 61 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 21× “Did the District Court err when it denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the charges against them pursuant to § 46-13-401(2), MCA, based on the State’s failure to bring them to trial within six months from the date of their plea entry? 2.”

State Ex Rel. Fletcher v. Dist. Court of Nineteenth Jud. Dist., 859 P.2d 992 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 30× “III STATUTORY BASIS FOR DISMISSAL OF FELONY CHARGES Section 46-13-401, MCA, provides, in pertinent part: (1) The court may, either on its own motion or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney and in furtherance of justice, order a complaint, information, or indictment…”

State v. Stanko, 1998 MT 323 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 42× “Does § 46-13-401(2), MCA, providing a six-month period in which to try *1142 misdemeanors, apply to a trial de novo in District Court? ¶ 4 2.”

State v. Luke, 2014 MT 22 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 76× “¶2 The issue on appeal is whether good cause existed for holding Luke’s trial past the six-month deadline in § 46-13-401(2), MCA. We conclude that good cause existed, and we accordingly affirm the decisions of the Justice Court and the District Court.”

State v. Fitzgerald, 940 P.2d 108 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 24× “Did the District Court err when it failed to dismiss for lack of speedy trial pursuant to § 46-13-401(2), MCA? 2. Did the District Court err when it failed to suppress Fitzgerald’s blood alcohol content test results? FACTUAL BACKGROUND Curtis A.”

State v. Romero, 926 P.2d 717 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 20× “Section 46-13-401(2), MCA, provides: (2) After the entry of a plea upon a misdemeanor charge, the court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the prosecution to be dismissed, with prejudice, if a defendant whose trial has not been postponed upon the…”

State v. Mantz, 887 P.2d 251 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 26× “Did the District Court err when it denied appellant's motion to dismiss the charges filed against him for lack of a speedy trial? Mantz argues that § 46-13-401(2), MCA, states that a defendant cannot be brought to trial after six months on a misdemeanor charge.”

State v. Knippel, 419 P.3d 1229 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 36× “After the District Court denied his motion to dismiss, Knippel entered into a plea agreement with the State, under which he pleaded guilty to amended charges of misdemeanor assault and VNCO and the State dismissed the PFMA charges. Knippel reserved his right to appeal the…”

City of Helena v. Broadwater, 2014 MT 185 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 15× “ISSUE ¶2 A restatement of the issue is whether the City of Helena met its burden under § 46-13-401(2), MCA, to show good cause for not bringing Broadwater to trial within six months.”

State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 4× “See § 46-13-401(2), MCA. [3] This rule must be extended logically to situations not involving "arrest, the filing of a complaint, or .”

State v. Chesarek, 1998 MT 15 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 31× “*217 ¶5 On December 23, 1996, Chesarek moved to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial under § 46-13-401(2), MCA. The Justice Court denied the motion to dismiss, tried Chesarek in absentia and found him guilty of DUI.”

Show all 69 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-401(1) — 9 cases

State Ex Rel. Fletcher v. Dist. Court of Nineteenth Jud. Dist., 859 P.2d 992 (Mont. 1993). “III STATUTORY BASIS FOR DISMISSAL OF FELONY CHARGES Section 46-13-401, MCA, provides, in pertinent part: (1) The court may, either on its own motion or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney and in furtherance of justice, order a complaint, information, or indictment…”

State v. Pinkerton, 891 P.2d 532 (Mont. 1995).

State v. Schneiderhan, 862 P.2d 37 (Mont. 1993).

State v. Cummins, 850 P.2d 952 (Mont. 1993).

State v. Partain, 2025 MT 83 (Mont. 2025).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-401(2) — 52 cases

State v. Strizich, 952 P.2d 1365 (Mont. 1997). “Strizich cross-appeals from the District Court's denial of his motion to dismiss for failure to provide him with a timely trial in compliance with § 46-13-401(2), MCA. We reverse the District Court's denial of Strizich's motion to dismiss and, therefore, decline to discuss the…”

State v. Bullock, 901 P.2d 61 (Mont. 1995). “Did the District Court err when it denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the charges against them pursuant to § 46-13-401(2), MCA, based on the State’s failure to bring them to trial within six months from the date of their plea entry? 2.”

State v. Stanko, 1998 MT 323 (Mont. 1998). “Does § 46-13-401(2), MCA, providing a six-month period in which to try *1142 misdemeanors, apply to a trial de novo in District Court? ¶ 4 2.”

State v. Luke, 2014 MT 22 (Mont. 2014). “¶2 The issue on appeal is whether good cause existed for holding Luke’s trial past the six-month deadline in § 46-13-401(2), MCA. We conclude that good cause existed, and we accordingly affirm the decisions of the Justice Court and the District Court.”

State v. Fitzgerald, 940 P.2d 108 (Mont. 1997). “Did the District Court err when it failed to dismiss for lack of speedy trial pursuant to § 46-13-401(2), MCA? 2. Did the District Court err when it failed to suppress Fitzgerald’s blood alcohol content test results? FACTUAL BACKGROUND Curtis A.”

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.