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

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322 (2026)

Disclosure By Prosecution

✓ 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. 46-15-322 Disclosure by prosecution

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 15. PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

Part 3. Discovery -- Immunity for Witnesses

Disclosure By Prosecution

46-15-322. Disclosure by prosecution. (1) Upon request, the prosecutor shall make available to the defendant for examination and reproduction the following material and information within the prosecutor's possession or control:

(a) the names, addresses, and statements of all persons whom the prosecutor may call as witnesses in the case in chief;

(b) all written or oral statements of the defendant and of any person who will be tried with the defendant;

(c) all written reports or statements of experts who have personally examined the defendant or any evidence in the particular case, together with the results of physical examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons;

(d) all papers, documents, photographs, or tangible objects that the prosecutor may use at trial or that were obtained from or purportedly belong to the defendant; and

(e) all material or information that tends to mitigate or negate the defendant's guilt as to the offense charged or that would tend to reduce the defendant's potential sentence.

(2) At the same time, the prosecutor shall inform the defendant of, and make available to the defendant for examination and reproduction, any written or recorded material or information within the prosecutor's control regarding:

(a) whether there has been any electronic surveillance of any conversations to which the defendant was a party;

(b) whether an investigative subpoena has been executed in connection with the case; and

(c) whether the case has involved an informant and, if so, the informant's identity if the defendant is entitled to know either or both of these facts under Rule 502 of the Montana Rules of Evidence and 46-15-324(3).

(3) The prosecutor may impose reasonable conditions, including an appropriate stipulation concerning chain of custody, to protect physical evidence produced under subsection (1)(d).

(4) The prosecutor's obligation of disclosure extends to material and information in the possession or control of members of the prosecutor's staff and of any other persons who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case.

(5) Upon motion showing that the defendant has substantial need in the preparation of the case for additional material or information not otherwise provided for and that the defendant is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means, the court, in its discretion, may order any person to make it available to the defendant. The court may, upon the request of any person affected by the order, vacate or modify the order if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The prosecutor may not be required to prepare or disclose summaries of witnesses' testimony.

(6) The prosecutor shall furnish to the defendant no later than 5 days before trial or at a later time as the court may for good cause permit, together with their statements, a list of the names and addresses of all persons whom the prosecutor intends to call as rebuttal witnesses to evidence of good character or the defenses of alibi, compulsion, entrapment, justifiable use of force, or mistaken identity or the defense that the defendant did not have a particular state of mind that is an element of the offense charged.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 202, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 137, Ch. 800, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 33, Ch. 262, L. 1993.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 94 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: City of Bozeman v. McCarthy, 447 P.3d 1048 (Mont. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Bozeman v. McCarthy, 447 P.3d 1048 (Mont. 2019). · cites it 62× “Independent of § 46-15-322, MCA, and implied from the fundamental fair trial rights guaranteed to criminal defendants under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, criminal prosecutors have an affirmative duty to disclose all…”
State v. Romero, 926 P.2d 717 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 66× “Section 46-15-322, MCA, allows a prosecutor to impose reasonable conditions on the disclosure of physical evidence.”
State v. Bobby Cooksey, 2012 MT 226 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 37× “¶35 The District Court construed § 45-3-112, MCA, to reflect these established obligations, and to require the prosecution to disclose any evidence it had that was relevant to the defense of justifiable use of force.”
State v. Jackson, 2009 MT 427 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 30× “Dale explained his opinion to the State, but provided no additional written report. ¶ 71 Upon request, the State must disclose "all written reports or statements of experts who have personally examined the defendant or any evidence in the particular case, together with the…”
City of Billings v. Peterson, 2004 MT 232 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 29× “In support of his motion, Peterson relied on § 46-15-322(1), MCA, United States Supreme Court cases cited for due process principles, United States v.”
State v. Morrisey, 2009 MT 201 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 26× “Symes’ “conclusion(s) or opinion(s) herein; the basis and/or reasoning and/or methodology of or for said conclusions or opinions; the results of any tests conducted; [and] a copy or any report of his opinion(s), conclusion(s).”
State v. Peters, 2011 MT 274 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 25× “It then set a hearing on whether it would be an undue hardship, under §46-15-322, MCA, for Appellants to view the source code in Kentucky under CMI’s proffered terms.”
State v. Gollehon, 864 P.2d 249 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 18× “Section 46-15-322 (1)(a), MCA. The State was not under a duty to investigate the entire case for Gollehon.”
State v. Pope, 2017 MT 12 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 41× “¶9 The State objected to producing the video, and argued to the District Court that the rules, citing § 46-15-322, MCA, required it to produce only the names and contact information for testifying witnesses and only exculpatory material.”
State v. Normandy, 2008 MT 437 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 13× “In the alternative, he asks that we declare unconstitutional the discrepancy between the obligations imposed upon the defendant for expert witness disclosure, found at § 46-15-323, MCA, and those *508 imposed upon the prosecutor at § 46-15-322, MCA. He asks for the latter relief…”
State v. J. Howard, 2021 MT 230 (Mont. 2021). · cites it 22× “” However, Howard’s request based on Brady/Giglio and § 46-15-322(1)(e), MCA, was raised for the first time in Howard’s reply brief filed in the Municipal Court.”
State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 4× “Specifically, the prosecution was twice ordered to comply with § 46-15-322, MCA (requiring the prosecutor, upon request, to make enumerated items within his or her control available to the defendant for examination and reproduction)—first in the District Court's February 20,…”
Show all 94 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(1) — 15 cases
City of Bozeman v. McCarthy, 447 P.3d 1048 (Mont. 2019). “Independent of § 46-15-322, MCA, and implied from the fundamental fair trial rights guaranteed to criminal defendants under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, criminal prosecutors have an affirmative duty to disclose all…”
State v. Bailey, 2004 MT 87 (Mont. 2004).
City of Billings v. Peterson, 2004 MT 232 (Mont. 2004). “In support of his motion, Peterson relied on § 46-15-322(1), MCA, United States Supreme Court cases cited for due process principles, United States v.”
State v. Ray, 882 P.2d 1013 (Mont. 1994).
State v. Gollehon, 864 P.2d 249 (Mont. 1993). “Section 46-15-322 (1)(a), MCA. The State was not under a duty to investigate the entire case for Gollehon.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(1)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Normandy, 2008 MT 437 (Mont. 2008). “In the alternative, he asks that we declare unconstitutional the discrepancy between the obligations imposed upon the defendant for expert witness disclosure, found at § 46-15-323, MCA, and those *508 imposed upon the prosecutor at § 46-15-322, MCA. He asks for the latter relief…”
State v. Pierce, 2016 MT 308 (Mont. 2016).
State v. T. Erickson, 2023 MT 57N (Mont. 2023).
State v. Gollehon, 864 P.2d 249 (Mont. 1993).
State v. C. Rucker, 2024 MT 71N (Mont. 2024).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Romero, 926 P.2d 717 (Mont. 1996). “Section 46-15-322, MCA, allows a prosecutor to impose reasonable conditions on the disclosure of physical evidence.”
State v. Jackson, 2009 MT 427 (Mont. 2009). “Dale explained his opinion to the State, but provided no additional written report. ¶ 71 Upon request, the State must disclose "all written reports or statements of experts who have personally examined the defendant or any evidence in the particular case, together with the…”
State v. G. Glenn, 2020 MT 313N (Mont. 2020).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(1)(c) — 3 cases
State v. Jackson, 2009 MT 427 (Mont. 2009). “Dale explained his opinion to the State, but provided no additional written report. ¶ 71 Upon request, the State must disclose "all written reports or statements of experts who have personally examined the defendant or any evidence in the particular case, together with the…”
State v. Clifford, 2005 MT 219 (Mont. 2005).
City of Billings v. GRELA, 2009 MT 172 (Mont. 2009).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(1)(d) — 5 cases
State v. Romero, 926 P.2d 717 (Mont. 1996). “Section 46-15-322, MCA, allows a prosecutor to impose reasonable conditions on the disclosure of physical evidence.”
State v. Waters, 743 P.2d 617 (Mont. 1987).
State v. Stewart, 2000 MT 379 (Mont. 2000).
State v. T. Erickson, 2023 MT 57N (Mont. 2023).
State v. M. Smith, 2026 MT 106 (Mont. 2026).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(1)(e) — 11 cases
City of Bozeman v. McCarthy, 447 P.3d 1048 (Mont. 2019). “Independent of § 46-15-322, MCA, and implied from the fundamental fair trial rights guaranteed to criminal defendants under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, criminal prosecutors have an affirmative duty to disclose all…”
State v. Crawford, 2016 MT 96 (Mont. 2016).
State v. J. Howard, 2021 MT 230 (Mont. 2021). “” However, Howard’s request based on Brady/Giglio and § 46-15-322(1)(e), MCA, was raised for the first time in Howard’s reply brief filed in the Municipal Court.”
State v. Reinert, 419 P.3d 662 (Mont. 2018).
State v. Ellison, 2012 MT 50 (Mont. 2012).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(12)(e) — 1 case
State v. Jackson, 2009 MT 427 (Mont. 2009). “Dale explained his opinion to the State, but provided no additional written report. ¶ 71 Upon request, the State must disclose "all written reports or statements of experts who have personally examined the defendant or any evidence in the particular case, together with the…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Licht, 879 P.2d 670 (Mont. 1994).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(2)(c) — 1 case
State v. S. Walston, 2020 MT 200 (Mont. 2020).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(4) — 10 cases
State v. Bobby Cooksey, 2012 MT 226 (Mont. 2012). “¶35 The District Court construed § 45-3-112, MCA, to reflect these established obligations, and to require the prosecution to disclose any evidence it had that was relevant to the defense of justifiable use of force.”
State v. Peters, 2011 MT 274 (Mont. 2011). “It then set a hearing on whether it would be an undue hardship, under §46-15-322, MCA, for Appellants to view the source code in Kentucky under CMI’s proffered terms.”
State v. Knowles, 2010 MT 186 (Mont. 2010).
McGarvey v. State, 2014 MT 189 (Mont. 2014).
State v. Pope, 2017 MT 12 (Mont. 2017). “¶9 The State objected to producing the video, and argued to the District Court that the rules, citing § 46-15-322, MCA, required it to produce only the names and contact information for testifying witnesses and only exculpatory material.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(5) — 16 cases
City of Bozeman v. McCarthy, 447 P.3d 1048 (Mont. 2019). “Independent of § 46-15-322, MCA, and implied from the fundamental fair trial rights guaranteed to criminal defendants under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, criminal prosecutors have an affirmative duty to disclose all…”
City of Billings v. Peterson, 2004 MT 232 (Mont. 2004). “In support of his motion, Peterson relied on § 46-15-322(1), MCA, United States Supreme Court cases cited for due process principles, United States v.”
State v. Peters, 2011 MT 274 (Mont. 2011). “It then set a hearing on whether it would be an undue hardship, under §46-15-322, MCA, for Appellants to view the source code in Kentucky under CMI’s proffered terms.”
State v. Romero, 926 P.2d 717 (Mont. 1996). “Section 46-15-322, MCA, allows a prosecutor to impose reasonable conditions on the disclosure of physical evidence.”
State v. J. Howard, 2021 MT 230 (Mont. 2021). “” However, Howard’s request based on Brady/Giglio and § 46-15-322(1)(e), MCA, was raised for the first time in Howard’s reply brief filed in the Municipal Court.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(6) — 7 cases
Riggs v. State, 2011 MT 239 (Mont. 2011).
State v. Weitzel, 2000 MT 86 (Mont. 2000).
State v. Hildreth, 884 P.2d 771 (Mont. 1994).
State v. Morrisey, 2009 MT 201 (Mont. 2009). “Symes’ “conclusion(s) or opinion(s) herein; the basis and/or reasoning and/or methodology of or for said conclusions or opinions; the results of any tests conducted; [and] a copy or any report of his opinion(s), conclusion(s).”
State v. F. Torres, 2021 MT 301 (Mont. 2021).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(a) — 2 cases
State v. Pope, 2017 MT 12 (Mont. 2017). “¶9 The State objected to producing the video, and argued to the District Court that the rules, citing § 46-15-322, MCA, required it to produce only the names and contact information for testifying witnesses and only exculpatory material.”
State v. Stewart, 833 P.2d 1085 (Mont. 1992).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(e) — 1 case
State v. Stewart, 833 P.2d 1085 (Mont. 1992).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(l)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Morrisey, 2009 MT 201 (Mont. 2009). “Symes’ “conclusion(s) or opinion(s) herein; the basis and/or reasoning and/or methodology of or for said conclusions or opinions; the results of any tests conducted; [and] a copy or any report of his opinion(s), conclusion(s).”
State v. Gollehon, 864 P.2d 249 (Mont. 1993). “Section 46-15-322 (1)(a), MCA. The State was not under a duty to investigate the entire case for Gollehon.”
State v. West, 826 P.2d 940 (Mont. 1992).
State v. Boettiger, 2004 MT 313 (Mont. 2004).
State v. Pope, 2017 MT 12 (Mont. 2017). “¶9 The State objected to producing the video, and argued to the District Court that the rules, citing § 46-15-322, MCA, required it to produce only the names and contact information for testifying witnesses and only exculpatory material.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(l)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Romero, 926 P.2d 717 (Mont. 1996). “Section 46-15-322, MCA, allows a prosecutor to impose reasonable conditions on the disclosure of physical evidence.”
State v. Jackson, 2009 MT 427 (Mont. 2009). “Dale explained his opinion to the State, but provided no additional written report. ¶ 71 Upon request, the State must disclose "all written reports or statements of experts who have personally examined the defendant or any evidence in the particular case, together with the…”
State v. Rudolph, 777 P.2d 296 (Mont. 1989).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(l)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Morrisey, 2009 MT 201 (Mont. 2009). “Symes’ “conclusion(s) or opinion(s) herein; the basis and/or reasoning and/or methodology of or for said conclusions or opinions; the results of any tests conducted; [and] a copy or any report of his opinion(s), conclusion(s).”
State v. Clifford, 2005 MT 219 (Mont. 2005).
Riggs v. State, 2011 MT 239 (Mont. 2011).
State v. William P. Given, 2015 MT 273 (Mont. 2015).
City of Billings v. GRELA, 2009 MT 172 (Mont. 2009).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(l)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Romero, 926 P.2d 717 (Mont. 1996). “Section 46-15-322, MCA, allows a prosecutor to impose reasonable conditions on the disclosure of physical evidence.”
State v. Stewart, 2000 MT 379 (Mont. 2000).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-322(l)(e) — 7 cases
State v. Gollehon, 864 P.2d 249 (Mont. 1993). “Section 46-15-322 (1)(a), MCA. The State was not under a duty to investigate the entire case for Gollehon.”
State v. Sol, 936 P.2d 307 (Mont. 1997).
State v. Hatfield, 888 P.2d 899 (Mont. 1995).
Gollehon v. State, 1999 MT 210 (Mont. 1999).
State v. Licht, 879 P.2d 670 (Mont. 1994).
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.