Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-331 (2026)

Compelling Testimony Or Production Of Evidence -- Immunity

✓ 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 15. PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

Part 3. Discovery -- Immunity for Witnesses

Compelling Testimony Or Production Of Evidence -- Immunity

46-15-331. Compelling testimony or production of evidence -- immunity. (1) Before or during trial in any judicial proceeding, a judge of the district or municipal court, upon request by the prosecutor or defense counsel, may require a person to answer any question or produce any evidence, even though personally incriminating, following a grant of immunity.

(2) If a person is required to give testimony or produce evidence in accordance with this section in any investigation or proceeding, compelled testimony or evidence and any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or evidence may not be used against the witness in any criminal prosecution.

(3) Nothing in this section prohibits a prosecutor from granting immunity from prosecution for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which a witness is compelled to testify if in the prosecutor's sole discretion it is determined that the ends of justice would be served.

(4) Immunity may not extend to prosecution or punishment for false statements given in any testimony required under this section.

History: En. 95-1807 by Sec. 7, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 95-1807; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 577, L. 1983; Sec. 46-15-311, MCA 1983; redes. 46-15-331 by Code Commissioner, 1985; amd. Sec. 145, Ch. 800, L. 1991.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2022 · leading case: State v. Fuller, 915 P.2d 809 (Mont. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Fuller, 915 P.2d 809 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 4× “This suggestion would completely abrogate the plain language of the Fifth Amendment and Article II, Section 25, of the Montana Constitution.”

State v. St. Dennis, 2010 MT 229 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 4× “Dennis to identify the witness and establish that the witness' testimony would add relevant information about the incident before granting immunity.”

Montana v. Haskins, 841 P.2d 542 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 3× “Did the District Court abuse its discretion in not granting immunity to appellant’s witnesses? Section 46-15-331, MCA (1989), states that the district court, upon the request of the prosecution or defense counsel, “may require a person to answer any question or produce any…”

State v. Myrhow, 865 P.2d 231 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 7× “The statute on which Myrhow relies, § 46-15-331, MCA, provides in pertinent part: (1) Before or during trial in any judicial proceeding, a judge of the district or municipal court, upon request by the prosecutor or defense counsel, may require a person to answer any question or…”

Commonwealth v. Swinehart, 664 A.2d 957 (Pa. 1995). “2d 231 (1993), relying upon Mont.Code Ann. § 46-15-331 (which allows use/derivative use and transactional immunity); State v.”

State ex rel. Nothum v. Walsh, 380 S.W.3d 557 (Mo. 2012). “09; Mont.Code Ann. § 46-15-331; Neb.Rev.Stat.”

State v. Young, 815 P.2d 590 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 6× “Section 46-15-331, MCA, states in part: “Before or during trial in any judicial proceeding, a justice of the supreme court or judge of the district court, upon request by the attorney prosecuting or counsel for the defense, may require a person to answer any question or produce…”

Hartman v. Knudsen (D. Mont. 2022). “§ 46-15-331 ; 7 Trial Tr. at 1507:16–1508:18, the State asked for time to decide whether it should offer Ginny immunity.”

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.