Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 15. PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE · Part 3. Discovery -- Immunity for Witnesses
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-301 (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Repealed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 15
  4. Part 3
  5. 46-15-301 Repealed

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 15. PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

Part 3. Discovery -- Immunity for Witnesses

Repealed

46-15-301. Repealed. Sec. 11, Ch. 202, L. 1985.

History: En. 95-1803 by Sec. 1, Ch. 196, L. 1967; amd. Sec. 26, Ch. 184, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 95-1803(1), (3); amd. Sec. 14, Ch. 713, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 557, L. 1981.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1979–2012 · leading case: State v. Forsyth, 761 P.2d 363 (Mont. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Forsyth, 761 P.2d 363 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 38× “Forsyth also argues that the lower court improperly allowed amendment of the information to include new witnesses under the authority provided by § 46-15-301(1), MCA (1983). We hold that the lower court properly applied § 46-15-301(1), MCA (1983), that any violation of the…”
State v. Wells, 658 P.2d 381 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 24× “Further, he maintained that the defendant had been unable to provide any information that supported an alibi defense since Wells claimed he was so intoxicated the night of the crime that he could not remember where he had been at any given time.”
State v. Madera, 670 P.2d 552 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 22× “Our statute, section 46-15-301, MCA, provides for reciprocal rules as to notice, but LaMere contends that in actual practice here, and as his trial was conducted, he was deprived of his due process rights when he was not given notice of the rebuttal witnesses as provided in that…”
State v. Gratzer, 682 P.2d 141 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 24× “First, the affirmative defenses listed in section 46-15-301, MCA, constitute complete defenses to the crimes charged.”
State v. Korell, 690 P.2d 992 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 12× “" Section 46-15-301(3), MCA. Hames' testimony was short and to the point.”
State v. Smith, 715 P.2d 1301 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 10× “If this Court finds jurisdiction, then appellant urges us to find error in that the State did not satisfy the "good cause" requirement of § 46-15-301(1), MCA, (repealed 1985), and that this was so highly prejudicial as to merit a mistrial.”
State v. Bailey, 2004 MT 87 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 6× “¶17 In Smith , the prosecution moved to add an expert to its witness list two days before trial.”
State v. Sage, 717 P.2d 1096 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 9× “] Section 46-15-301, MCA, (1983) provided in part: “(2) For purpose of notice only and to prevent surprise, the defendant shall furnish to the prosecution and file with the clerk of the court, at the time of entering his plea of not guilty or within 10 days thereafter or at such…”
State v. Nicholls, 649 P.2d 1346 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 10× “” The whole purpose of section 46-15-301, requiring such notice from the State and from a defendant is to provide for the discovery of witnesses, and to place both parties on an equal footing with respect to the proof necessary in the trial of a cause.”
State v. Berg, 697 P.2d 1365 (Mont. 1985). · cites it 6× “Whether the District Court erred in striking the testimony of a certain witness because the witness was an alibi witness and the defense did not give the prosecution the required notice of intent to rely on alibi witness testimony under Section 46-15-301(2), MCA. 3. Whether the…”
State v. D.B.S., 700 P.2d 630 (Mont. 1985). · cites it 3× “The affirmative defenses available to the defendant are enumerated in section 46-15-301(2)(a), MCA. It appears that the defense of alibi is the only one which could apply to this charge.”
State v. Rose, 608 P.2d 1074 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 3× “Section 46-15-301(1), MCA, provides that the State need not provide the defendant with the names of rebuttal *88 witnesses.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-301(1) — 6 cases
State v. Forsyth, 761 P.2d 363 (Mont. 1988). “Forsyth also argues that the lower court improperly allowed amendment of the information to include new witnesses under the authority provided by § 46-15-301(1), MCA (1983). We hold that the lower court properly applied § 46-15-301(1), MCA (1983), that any violation of the…”
State v. Smith, 715 P.2d 1301 (Mont. 1986). “If this Court finds jurisdiction, then appellant urges us to find error in that the State did not satisfy the "good cause" requirement of § 46-15-301(1), MCA, (repealed 1985), and that this was so highly prejudicial as to merit a mistrial.”
State v. Bailey, 2004 MT 87 (Mont. 2004). “¶17 In Smith , the prosecution moved to add an expert to its witness list two days before trial.”
State v. Wells, 658 P.2d 381 (Mont. 1983). “Further, he maintained that the defendant had been unable to provide any information that supported an alibi defense since Wells claimed he was so intoxicated the night of the crime that he could not remember where he had been at any given time.”
State v. Rose, 608 P.2d 1074 (Mont. 1980). “Section 46-15-301(1), MCA, provides that the State need not provide the defendant with the names of rebuttal *88 witnesses.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-301(2) — 4 cases
State v. Wells, 658 P.2d 381 (Mont. 1983). “Further, he maintained that the defendant had been unable to provide any information that supported an alibi defense since Wells claimed he was so intoxicated the night of the crime that he could not remember where he had been at any given time.”
State v. Nicholls, 649 P.2d 1346 (Mont. 1982). “” The whole purpose of section 46-15-301, requiring such notice from the State and from a defendant is to provide for the discovery of witnesses, and to place both parties on an equal footing with respect to the proof necessary in the trial of a cause.”
State v. Berg, 697 P.2d 1365 (Mont. 1985). “Whether the District Court erred in striking the testimony of a certain witness because the witness was an alibi witness and the defense did not give the prosecution the required notice of intent to rely on alibi witness testimony under Section 46-15-301(2), MCA. 3. Whether the…”
State v. Keller, 662 P.2d 604 (Mont. 1983).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-301(2)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Gratzer, 682 P.2d 141 (Mont. 1984). “First, the affirmative defenses listed in section 46-15-301, MCA, constitute complete defenses to the crimes charged.”
State v. D.B.S., 700 P.2d 630 (Mont. 1985). “The affirmative defenses available to the defendant are enumerated in section 46-15-301(2)(a), MCA. It appears that the defense of alibi is the only one which could apply to this charge.”
State v. Fish, 621 P.2d 1072 (Mont. 1980).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-301(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Keller, 662 P.2d 604 (Mont. 1983).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-301(3) — 3 cases
State v. Madera, 670 P.2d 552 (Mont. 1983). “Our statute, section 46-15-301, MCA, provides for reciprocal rules as to notice, but LaMere contends that in actual practice here, and as his trial was conducted, he was deprived of his due process rights when he was not given notice of the rebuttal witnesses as provided in that…”
State v. Korell, 690 P.2d 992 (Mont. 1984). “" Section 46-15-301(3), MCA. Hames' testimony was short and to the point.”
State v. Sage, 717 P.2d 1096 (Mont. 1986). “] Section 46-15-301, MCA, (1983) provided in part: “(2) For purpose of notice only and to prevent surprise, the defendant shall furnish to the prosecution and file with the clerk of the court, at the time of entering his plea of not guilty or within 10 days thereafter or at such…”
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.