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

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-329 (2026)

Sanctions

✓ 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. 46-15-329 Sanctions

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 15. PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

Part 3. Discovery -- Immunity for Witnesses

Sanctions

46-15-329. Sanctions. If at any time during the course of the proceeding it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with any of the provisions of this part or any order issued pursuant to this part, the court may impose any sanction that it finds just under the circumstances, including but not limited to:

(1) ordering disclosure of the information not previously disclosed;

(2) granting a continuance;

(3) holding a witness, party, or counsel in contempt for an intentional violation;

(4) precluding a party from calling a witness, offering evidence, or raising a defense not disclosed; or

(5) declaring a mistrial when necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

History: En. Sec. 9, Ch. 202, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 144, Ch. 800, L. 1991.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: State v. Berg, 1999 MT 282 (Mont. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Berg, 1999 MT 282 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 52× “Berg appeals from the District Court's exclusion of his witnesses pursuant to § 46-15-329, MCA, for failure to disclose them and from the District Court's refusal to grant him a new trial based upon ineffective assistance of his counsel.”
State v. Dezeeuw, 1999 MT 331 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 52× “On March 2, 1998, the District Court filed its order and memorandum setting forth the District Court's reasons for excluding Dezeeuw's witnesses and evidence as a sanction for discovery noncompliance pursuant to § 46-15-329, MCA. ¶ 8 A jury trial was held on March 2 and 3, 1998.”
State v. Bobby Cooksey, 2012 MT 226 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 6× “After trial starts, the defense may not call any witness in support of a defense of justifiable use of force if that 10 witness had not been previously listed, except upon a showing of good cause.”
State v. Couture, 2010 MT 201 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 4× “However, when not all of the items were forthcoming, Dupuis filed a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions under § 46-15-329, MCA. She asked the court to suppress any and all evidence that flowed from the May 17, 2004 search warrant.”
State v. Pope, 2017 MT 12 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 17× “11 Section 46-15-329, MCA. The State concedes it wrongfully withheld Myers’ video-recorded statement.”
State v. Byers, 861 P.2d 860 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 6× “Stratford to testify to that information already in defense counsel's hands.”
State v. Waters, 743 P.2d 617 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 5× “By its terms, Section 46-15-329 provides that “the court may impose any sanction that it finds just under the circumstances .”
State Ex Rel. Carkulis v. Dist. Court of the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 746 P.2d 604 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 8× “This time, a sanction has been imposed against the defendant, the most drastic available to the District Court under § 46-15-329, MCA, that of barring him from offering evidence not disclosed before May 1, 1987.”
State v. DeMary, 2003 MT 307 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 5× “¶9 The case proceeded to jury trial on March 19,2002. The jury found DeMary guilty of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and six counts of sexual assault.”
State v. Golder, 2000 MT 239 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 10× “Golder claimed the State’s failure to timely provide notice of proposed witnesses constituted unfair surprise and denied him a fair trial and that under § 46-15-329, MCA, sanctions were warranted.”
State v. Stewart, 2000 MT 379 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 4× “Stewart argues that if the Soma prescription had been revealed when it was discovered, Stewart would have had ample time to reconsider his decision to testify or exercise his right to remain silent.”
State v. Van Voast, 805 P.2d 1380 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 5× “Section 46-15-329, MCA, gives district courts the flexibility to impose sanctions commensurate with a failure to comply with discovery orders.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-329(2): 1 case
State v. Pierce, 2016 MT 308 (Mont. 2016).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-329(4): 5 cases
State v. Bobby Cooksey, 2012 MT 226 (Mont. 2012). “After trial starts, the defense may not call any witness in support of a defense of justifiable use of force if that 10 witness had not been previously listed, except upon a showing of good cause.”
State v. Dezeeuw, 1999 MT 331 (Mont. 1999). “On March 2, 1998, the District Court filed its order and memorandum setting forth the District Court's reasons for excluding Dezeeuw's witnesses and evidence as a sanction for discovery noncompliance pursuant to § 46-15-329, MCA. ¶ 8 A jury trial was held on March 2 and 3, 1998.”
State v. Haskins, 887 P.2d 1189 (Mont. 1994).
State v. M. Latter, 2025 MT 4N (Mont. 2025).
State v. A. Smith, 2025 MT 281 (Mont. 2025).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-329(5): 1 case
State v. Pope, 2017 MT 12 (Mont. 2017). “11 Section 46-15-329, MCA. The State concedes it wrongfully withheld Myers’ video-recorded statement.”
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.