Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
State v. Strong, 2010 MT 163 (Mont. 2010).
State v. Strong, 2010 MT 163 (Mont. 2010).
· cites it 74× “¶ 2 Strong presents several issues for review, one of which is determinative: Whether the District Court properly denied Strong's motion to dismiss based upon the State's failure to comply with the requirements of § 46-7-101, MCA. BACKGROUND ¶ 3 Strong is the father of K.”
City of Billings v. Peterson, 2004 MT 232 (Mont. 2004).
· cites it 21× “2d 800, 802 (citation omitted), that the purposes of § 46-7-101, MCA, are to enable a defendant to assist in preparing the defense and to protect a defendant from being held incommunicado for a protracted time.”
State v. Gatlin, 2009 MT 348 (Mont. 2009).
· cites it 10× “¶ 16 Whether an initial appearance is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 46-7-101(1), MCA, which requires a person who is arrested to be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest and most accessible judge, is a question of statutory construction, which we…”
State v. Norvell, 440 P.3d 634 (Mont. 2019).
· cites it 21× “¶11 On November 21, Norvell filed a motion to dismiss, arguing his initial appearance was unnecessarily delayed in violation of both § 46-7-101, MCA, and his constitutional right to due process.”
State v. Bobby Cooksey, 2012 MT 226 (Mont. 2012).
· cites it 6× “Section 46-7-101(1), MCA. This statute does not identify any sanction for a violation of its requirement of a prompt initial appearance.”
State v. Beach, 705 P.2d 94 (Mont. 1985).
· cites it 6× “"Once a defendant has established the delay was unnecessary the burden shifts to the prosecution. The State must show the evidence obtained during the delay was not reasonably related to the delay.”
State v. Rodriguez, 628 P.2d 280 (Mont. 1981).
· cites it 6× “He claims that he was not brought to a magistrate “without unnecessary delay” within the meaning of section 46-7-101, MCA; he claims that the District Court could not lawfully require that he post a $ 10,000 cash bond in addition to posting a $ 15,000 bond in *418 another…”
State v. Mark White, 2014 MT 335 (Mont. 2014).
· cites it 27× “Section 46-7-101, MCA. At the initial appearance, the judge must inform the defendant of the following: the charges against him, the right to counsel and the right to appointed counsel if indigent, the general circumstances under which the defendant may seek pre-trial release,…”
State v. Spang, 2002 MT 120 (Mont. 2002).
· cites it 4× “¶ 36 We note that Spang additionally alleges his September 19th statements should have been suppressed because the 2 ½ day delay between his arrest on the evening of Friday, September 17, 1999, and his initial appearance on the morning of Monday, September 20, 1999, was…”
State v. Dieziger, 650 P.2d 800 (Mont. 1982).
· cites it 8× “Finally, the proper remedy for a violation of section 46-7-101 is suppression of improperly obtained evidence.”
State v. Updegraff, 2011 MT 321 (Mont. 2011).
· cites it 4× “800, §87; §46-7-101(1), MCA (2011) (the arrested person “must be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest and most accessible judge for an initial appearance” (emphasis added)).”
State v. Haller, 2013 MT 199 (Mont. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Section 46-7-101, MCA (emphasis added). We have noted that this statute, together with the requirement to inform defendants of their rights set out in §46-7-102, MCA, is designed to “ensure that a criminal prosecution begins promptly and with a recognition of the defendant’s…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-7-101(1) — 16 cases
State v. Strong, 2010 MT 163 (Mont. 2010).
“¶ 2 Strong presents several issues for review, one of which is determinative: Whether the District Court properly denied Strong's motion to dismiss based upon the State's failure to comply with the requirements of § 46-7-101, MCA. BACKGROUND ¶ 3 Strong is the father of K.”
City of Billings v. Peterson, 2004 MT 232 (Mont. 2004).
“2d 800, 802 (citation omitted), that the purposes of § 46-7-101, MCA, are to enable a defendant to assist in preparing the defense and to protect a defendant from being held incommunicado for a protracted time.”
State v. Gatlin, 2009 MT 348 (Mont. 2009).
“¶ 16 Whether an initial appearance is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 46-7-101(1), MCA, which requires a person who is arrested to be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest and most accessible judge, is a question of statutory construction, which we…”
State v. Bobby Cooksey, 2012 MT 226 (Mont. 2012).
“Section 46-7-101(1), MCA. This statute does not identify any sanction for a violation of its requirement of a prompt initial appearance.”
State v. Spang, 2002 MT 120 (Mont. 2002).
“¶ 36 We note that Spang additionally alleges his September 19th statements should have been suppressed because the 2 ½ day delay between his arrest on the evening of Friday, September 17, 1999, and his initial appearance on the morning of Monday, September 20, 1999, was…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-7-101(2) — 2 cases
State v. Dieziger, 650 P.2d 800 (Mont. 1982).
“Finally, the proper remedy for a violation of section 46-7-101 is suppression of improperly obtained evidence.”
State v. Updegraff, 2011 MT 321 (Mont. 2011).
“800, §87; §46-7-101(1), MCA (2011) (the arrested person “must be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest and most accessible judge for an initial appearance” (emphasis added)).”
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.