Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 16. TRIAL · Part 1. General Provisions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105 (2026)

Plea Of Guilty -- Use Of Two-Way Electronic Audio-Video Communication

✓ 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 16
  4. Part 1
  5. 46-16-105 Plea of guilty -- use of two-way electronic audio-video communication

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 16. TRIAL

Part 1. General Provisions

Plea Of Guilty -- Use Of Two-Way Electronic Audio-Video Communication

46-16-105. Plea of guilty -- use of two-way electronic audio-video communication. (1) Before or during trial, a plea of guilty must be accepted, and a plea of nolo contendere may be accepted with the consent of the court and the prosecutor, when:

(a) subject to the provisions of subsection (3), the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in open court; and

(b) the court has informed the defendant of the consequences of the plea and of the maximum penalty provided by law that may be imposed upon acceptance of the plea.

(2) At any time before judgment or, except when a claim of innocence is supported by evidence of a fundamental miscarriage of justice, within 1 year after judgment becomes final, the court may, for good cause shown, permit the plea of guilty or nolo contendere to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted. A judgment becomes final for purposes of this subsection (2):

(a) when the time for appeal to the Montana supreme court expires;

(b) if an appeal is taken to the Montana supreme court, when the time for petitioning the United States supreme court for review expires; or

(c) if review is sought in the United States supreme court, on the date that that court issues its final order in the case.

(3) For purposes of this section, an entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere through the use of two-way electronic audio-video communication, allowing all of the participants to be heard in the courtroom by all present and allowing the party speaking to be seen, is considered to be an entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in open court. Audio-video communication may be used if neither party objects and the court agrees to its use and has informed the defendant that the defendant has the right to object to its use. The audio-video communication must operate as provided in 46-12-201.

History: En. 95-1902 by Sec. 1, Ch. 196, L. 1967; R.C.M. 1947, 95-1902; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 163, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 16, Ch. 395, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 96, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 346, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 222, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 144, L. 2013.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 186 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Montgomery, 2010 MT 193 (Mont. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Montgomery, 2010 MT 193 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 16× “1 The Legislature also amended § 46-16-105, MCA, in 2005, but those amendments have no bearing on the issues here.”
State v. Lone Elk, 2005 MT 56 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 11× “Over time, this Court has, in practice, equated good cause under § 46-16-105, MCA, with the constitutional test of voluntariness.”
State v. Robinson, 2009 MT 170 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 18× “¶ 11 Section 46-16-105(2), MCA, permits withdrawal of a plea of guilty if good cause is shown.”
State v. Deserly, 2008 MT 242 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 11× “Section 46-16-105(2), MCA (2005). “Good cause,” as used in § 46-16-105(2), MCA, includes the minimal constitutional requirement that a guilty plea be voluntary and intelligent.”
State v. Warclub, 2005 MT 149 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 6× “¶13 On December 23, 2002, Warclub, through his counsel Edwards, moved to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to §46-16-105(2), MCA, alleging that the District Court erred when it failed to ask Warclub if he was satisfied with his counsel when it accepted his change of plea.”
State v. Boucher, 2002 MT 114 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 12× “Section 46-16-105(2), MCA. This Court reviews *24 denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.”
State v. Andrews, 2010 MT 154 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 20× “The District Court denied Andrews' motion, concluding that he had received the benefits of the plea agreement and that even if Goetz required suppression of the electronic monitoring the State still had sufficient evidence to convict.”
State v. Morgan, 2003 MT 193 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 8× “II ¶15 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Morgan’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea? ¶16 Section 46-16-105(1), MCA, provides that “[a]t anytime before or after judgment, the court may, for good cause shown, permit the plea of guilty or nolo contendere to be…”
State v. Bowley, 938 P.2d 592 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 10× “Section 46-16-105(2), MCA. "The fundamental purpose of allowing the withdrawal of a guilty plea is to prevent the possibility of convicting an innocent [person].”
State v. Huttinger, 595 P.2d 363 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 12× “"The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty and shall not accept the plea of guilty without first determining that the plea is voluntary with an understanding of the charge.”
State v. Liefert, 2002 MT 48 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 10× “See § 46-12-210(a)(iii) and § 46-16-105(1), MCA. He also cites United States v.”
State v. Cavanaugh, 673 P.2d 482 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 18× “" The main thrust of defendant's argument is that he was not told, until just prior to sentencing, that the sentencing judge could declare him ineligible for parole, or for the prison furlough system, and therefore, he did not understand the consequences of his guilty plea.”
Show all 186 citing cases →
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(1): 10 cases
State v. Garner, 2001 MT 222 (Mont. 2001).
State v. Morgan, 2003 MT 193 (Mont. 2003). “II ¶15 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Morgan’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea? ¶16 Section 46-16-105(1), MCA, provides that “[a]t anytime before or after judgment, the court may, for good cause shown, permit the plea of guilty or nolo contendere to be…”
State v. Liefert, 2002 MT 48 (Mont. 2002). “See § 46-12-210(a)(iii) and § 46-16-105(1), MCA. He also cites United States v.”
State v. Cavanaugh, 673 P.2d 482 (Mont. 1983). “" The main thrust of defendant's argument is that he was not told, until just prior to sentencing, that the sentencing judge could declare him ineligible for parole, or for the prison furlough system, and therefore, he did not understand the consequences of his guilty plea.”
State v. Roach, 1999 MT 38 (Mont. 1999).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(1)(a): 1 case
In re S.D., 422 P.3d 122 (Mont. 2018).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(1)(b): 4 cases
State v. Wilson, 1999 MT 52 (Mont. 1999).
State v. Lone Elk, 2005 MT 56 (Mont. 2005). “Over time, this Court has, in practice, equated good cause under § 46-16-105, MCA, with the constitutional test of voluntariness.”
State v. Cameron, 830 P.2d 1284 (Mont. 1992).
State v. Skroch, 883 P.2d 1256 (Mont. 1994).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(2): 160 cases
State v. Montgomery, 2010 MT 193 (Mont. 2010). “1 The Legislature also amended § 46-16-105, MCA, in 2005, but those amendments have no bearing on the issues here.”
State v. Robinson, 2009 MT 170 (Mont. 2009). “¶ 11 Section 46-16-105(2), MCA, permits withdrawal of a plea of guilty if good cause is shown.”
State v. Deserly, 2008 MT 242 (Mont. 2008). “Section 46-16-105(2), MCA (2005). “Good cause,” as used in § 46-16-105(2), MCA, includes the minimal constitutional requirement that a guilty plea be voluntary and intelligent.”
State v. Warclub, 2005 MT 149 (Mont. 2005). “¶13 On December 23, 2002, Warclub, through his counsel Edwards, moved to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to §46-16-105(2), MCA, alleging that the District Court erred when it failed to ask Warclub if he was satisfied with his counsel when it accepted his change of plea.”
State v. Boucher, 2002 MT 114 (Mont. 2002). “Section 46-16-105(2), MCA. This Court reviews *24 denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(2)(a): 5 cases
State v. Garner, 2014 MT 312 (Mont. 2014).
Shepherd v. State, 2014 MT 154N (Mont. 2014).
State v. Ring, 2018 MT 40N (Mont. 2018).
State v. Carpenter, 2015 MT 156N (Mont. 2015).
State v. Daniel Garner, 2014 MT 312 (Mont. 2014).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(2)(b): 2 cases
State v. Whalen, 2013 MT 26 (Mont. 2013).
State v. Mackay, 2020 MT 122N (Mont. 2020).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(2)(c): 1 case
Whalen v. State, 2017 MT 239N (Mont. 2017).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(b): 1 case
State v. Buckman, 768 P.2d 1361 (Mont. 1989).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(l): 1 case
State v. Anderson (Mont. 1995).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(l)(a): 1 case
State v. Lance, 651 P.2d 1003 (Mont. 1982).
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(l)(b): 6 cases
State v. Wilson, 1999 MT 52 (Mont. 1999).
State v. Melone, 2000 MT 118 (Mont. 2000).
State v. Buckman, 768 P.2d 1361 (Mont. 1989).
Benjamin v. McCormick, 792 P.2d 7 (Mont. 1990).
State v. Cameron, 830 P.2d 1284 (Mont. 1992).
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.