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

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323 (2026)

Disclosure By Defendant

✓ 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. 46-15-323 Disclosure by defendant

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 15. PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

Part 3. Discovery -- Immunity for Witnesses

Disclosure By Defendant

46-15-323. Disclosure by defendant. (1) At any time after the filing in district court of an indictment or information, the defendant, in connection with the particular crime charged and upon written request of the prosecutor and approval of the court:

(a) shall appear in a lineup;

(b) shall speak for identification by witnesses;

(c) must be fingerprinted, palm printed, footprinted, or voiceprinted;

(d) shall pose for photographs not involving reenactment of an event;

(e) shall try on clothing;

(f) shall permit the taking of samples of the defendant's hair, blood, saliva, urine, or other specified materials that do not involve unreasonable bodily intrusions;

(g) shall provide handwriting samples; or

(h) shall submit to a reasonable physical or medical inspection; however, the inspection does not include psychiatric or psychological examination.

(2) Within 30 days after the arraignment or at a later time as the court may for good cause permit, the defendant shall provide the prosecutor with a written notice of the defendant's intention to introduce evidence at trial of good character or the defenses of alibi, compulsion, entrapment, justifiable use of force, or mistaken identity.

(3) Within 10 days after receiving a report of the defendant's mental condition from a psychiatrist, psychologist, or advanced practice registered nurse or at a later time as the court may for good cause permit, the defendant shall provide the prosecutor with a written notice of the defendant's intention to introduce evidence at trial of the defense that because of a mental disease or disorder, the defendant did not have a particular state of mind that is an essential element of the offense charged.

(4) The notice must specify for each defense the names and addresses of the persons, other than the defendant, whom the defendant may call as witnesses in support of the defense, together with all written reports or statements made by them, including all reports and statements concerning the results of physical examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons, except that the defendant need not include a privileged report or statement unless the defendant intends to use the privileged report or statement, or the witness who made it, at trial.

(5) Prior to trial, the defendant may, upon motion and showing of good cause, add to the list of witnesses the names of any additional witnesses and disclose their reports or statements as required by this section. After the trial commences, no witness may be called by the defendant in support of these defenses unless the name of the witness is included on the list and the witness's report or statement has been disclosed as required by this section, except for good cause shown.

(6) Within 30 days after the arraignment or at a later time as the court may for good cause permit, the defendant shall make available to the prosecutor for testing, examination, or reproduction:

(a) the names, addresses, and statements of all persons, other than the defendant, whom the defendant may call as witnesses in the defense case in chief, together with their statements;

(b) the names and addresses of experts whom the defendant may call at trial, together with the results of their physical examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons, including all written reports and statements made by these experts in connection with the particular case; and

(c) all papers, documents, photographs, and other tangible objects that the defendant may use at trial.

(7) The defendant's obligation under this section extends to material and information within the possession or control of the defendant, defense counsel, and defense counsel's staff or investigators.

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

History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 202, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 138, Ch. 800, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 182, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 34, Ch. 262, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 303, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 23, Ch. 161, L. 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: State v. Huerta, 947 P.2d 483 (Mont. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Huerta, 947 P.2d 483 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 22× “Did the District Court violate § 46-15-323(8), MCA, when it required that Huerta disclose summaries of witness testimony prior to trial? 2.”
State v. Lester Kills on Top, 787 P.2d 336 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 16× “2d 604 , wherein we upheld the validity of § 46-15-323, MCA, both against a constitutional challenge and a claim that it violated the work product doctrine.”
State Ex Rel. Carkulis v. Dist. Court of the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 746 P.2d 604 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 25× “The orders of the District Court in this case are based on provisions contained in § 46-15-323, MCA. The important subsections are: (4) Simultaneously with the notice of defenses submitted under subsection (3), the defendant shall make available to the prosecutor for testing,…”
State v. DeMary, 2003 MT 307 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 16× “Baxter from testifying because DeMary failed to comply with § 46-15-323, MCA (1999). ¶14 Section 46-15-323(6), MCA (1999), provides, in pertinent part: Within 30 days after the arraignment or at a later time as the *203 court may for good cause permit, the defendant shall make…”
State v. Berg, 1999 MT 282 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 18× “¶ 18 The State contends that Berg violated § 46-15-323, MCA, which provides: (6) Within 30 days after the arraignment or at a later time as the court may for good cause permit, the defendant shall make available to the prosecutor (a) the names, addresses, and statements of all…”
Soraich v. State, 2002 MT 187 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 8× “The Court in Miller held that the defense investigator's report also fell within the scope of § 46-15-323, MCA, providing for disclosure by the defense, and as such, it should have been provided to the State.”
State v. Bobby Cooksey, 2012 MT 226 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 6× “” He had heard of one case in which a person with Paxil in his system had committed murder, but did not know whether the Paxil influenced the conduct.”
State v. Miller, 757 P.2d 1275 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 6× “The investigator’s report fell within the scope of Section 46-15-323, MCA, and the State’s discovery request.”
State v. Normandy, 2008 MT 437 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 6× “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.”
State v. Dezeeuw, 1999 MT 331 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 18× “¶ 12 The State contends that Dezeeuw violated § 46-15-323, MCA, which provides: (2) Within 30 days after the arraignment or at a later time as the court may for good cause permit, the defendant shall provide the prosecutor with a written notice of the defendant's intention to…”
State v. Davidson, 880 P.2d 1331 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 18× “Therefore, pursuant to § 46-15-323, MCA, the District Court ordered Davidson to provide the State with copies of reports from those witnesses who would be called in support of that defense.”
State v. Daniels, 2011 MT 278 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 3× “And, while the Legislature provided that the burden of proof can ultimately be shifted to the State, it placed the initial burden of evidence production upon the defendant. Under § 46-16-131, MCA (2009), the defendant has the initial burden to “offer[] evidence of justifiable…”
Show all 38 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323(2) — 10 cases
State v. Daniels, 2011 MT 278 (Mont. 2011). “And, while the Legislature provided that the burden of proof can ultimately be shifted to the State, it placed the initial burden of evidence production upon the defendant. Under § 46-16-131, MCA (2009), the defendant has the initial burden to “offer[] evidence of justifiable…”
State v. Denise L. Fender, 2007 MT 268 (Mont. 2007).
State v. Root, 1999 MT 203 (Mont. 1999).
City of Missoula v. Shumway, 434 P.3d 918 (Mont. 2019).
State v. Dezeeuw, 1999 MT 331 (Mont. 1999). “¶ 12 The State contends that Dezeeuw violated § 46-15-323, MCA, which provides: (2) Within 30 days after the arraignment or at a later time as the court may for good cause permit, the defendant shall provide the prosecutor with a written notice of the defendant's intention to…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323(3) — 7 cases
State Ex Rel. Carkulis v. Dist. Court of the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 746 P.2d 604 (Mont. 1987). “The orders of the District Court in this case are based on provisions contained in § 46-15-323, MCA. The important subsections are: (4) Simultaneously with the notice of defenses submitted under subsection (3), the defendant shall make available to the prosecutor for testing,…”
State v. Shaver, 760 P.2d 1230 (Mont. 1988).
State v. Davidson, 880 P.2d 1331 (Mont. 1994). “Therefore, pursuant to § 46-15-323, MCA, the District Court ordered Davidson to provide the State with copies of reports from those witnesses who would be called in support of that defense.”
State v. Garding, 2013 MT 355 (Mont. 2013).
State v. Myers Starks, 2026 MT 93 (Mont. 2026).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323(4) — 5 cases
State v. Lester Kills on Top, 787 P.2d 336 (Mont. 1990). “2d 604 , wherein we upheld the validity of § 46-15-323, MCA, both against a constitutional challenge and a claim that it violated the work product doctrine.”
State Ex Rel. Carkulis v. Dist. Court of the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 746 P.2d 604 (Mont. 1987). “The orders of the District Court in this case are based on provisions contained in § 46-15-323, MCA. The important subsections are: (4) Simultaneously with the notice of defenses submitted under subsection (3), the defendant shall make available to the prosecutor for testing,…”
State v. Miller, 757 P.2d 1275 (Mont. 1988). “The investigator’s report fell within the scope of Section 46-15-323, MCA, and the State’s discovery request.”
State v. Kaczmarek, 795 P.2d 439 (Mont. 1990).
State v. Davidson, 880 P.2d 1331 (Mont. 1994). “Therefore, pursuant to § 46-15-323, MCA, the District Court ordered Davidson to provide the State with copies of reports from those witnesses who would be called in support of that defense.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323(4)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Haskins, 887 P.2d 1189 (Mont. 1994).
Hans v. State, 942 P.2d 674 (Mont. 1997).
Hans v. State, 1998 MT 255 (Mont. 1997).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323(4)(c) — 1 case
State v. Keup, 741 P.2d 1330 (Mont. 1987).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323(5) — 1 case
State v. Bobby Cooksey, 2012 MT 226 (Mont. 2012). “” He had heard of one case in which a person with Paxil in his system had committed murder, but did not know whether the Paxil influenced the conduct.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323(6) — 5 cases
State v. DeMary, 2003 MT 307 (Mont. 2003). “Baxter from testifying because DeMary failed to comply with § 46-15-323, MCA (1999). ¶14 Section 46-15-323(6), MCA (1999), provides, in pertinent part: Within 30 days after the arraignment or at a later time as the *203 court may for good cause permit, the defendant shall make…”
State v. Delos Santos, 902 P.2d 510 (Mont. 1995).
State v. Berg, 1999 MT 282 (Mont. 1999). “¶ 18 The State contends that Berg violated § 46-15-323, MCA, which provides: (6) Within 30 days after the arraignment or at a later time as the court may for good cause permit, the defendant shall make available to the prosecutor (a) the names, addresses, and statements of all…”
State v. N. Mahseelah, 2020 MT 272N (Mont. 2020).
State v. Schindler (Mont. 1996).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323(6)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Berg, 1999 MT 282 (Mont. 1999). “¶ 18 The State contends that Berg violated § 46-15-323, MCA, which provides: (6) Within 30 days after the arraignment or at a later time as the court may for good cause permit, the defendant shall make available to the prosecutor (a) the names, addresses, and statements of all…”
State v. Morsette, 2013 MT 270 (Mont. 2013).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323(6)(b) — 2 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.”
State v. Garding, 2013 MT 355 (Mont. 2013).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-323(8) — 2 cases
State v. Huerta, 947 P.2d 483 (Mont. 1997). “Did the District Court violate § 46-15-323(8), MCA, when it required that Huerta disclose summaries of witness testimony prior to trial? 2.”
State v. Garding, 2013 MT 355 (Mont. 2013).
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.