Archive | Discovery

RSS feed for this section

State v. Crawford

State v. Crawford, 2016 MT 96 (April 26, 2016) (McKinnon, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in denying Crawford’s motion to suppress; (2) whether Crawford received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) whether the district court improperly denied Crawford’s third discovery request; (4) whether the district court erred by denying Crawford’s post-trial motion to dismiss; and (5) whether the district court adequately addressed Crawford’s complaints about his assigned counsel.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) no; (3) no; (4) no; and (5) yes.


Facts: Crawford was released on parole in December 2010 after incarceration at Montana State Prison for multiple drug-related felony convictions. As a condition of his parole, he was required to obtain written permission from his parole officer before traveling outside of Silver Bow, Beaverhead, Jefferson or Deer Lodge counties.…

State v. Bowen

State v. Bowen, 2015 MT 246 (Aug. 18, 2015) (McKinnon, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing Nelson to testify as a witness at trial; and (2) whether the district court erred in denying Bowen’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence.

Short Answer: (1) No; and (2) no.


Facts: Montana Department of Transportation employees found Brian Doyle’s body Jan. 20, 2012, in a ditch along Hwy. 2. An investigation determined his death occurred the night of Jan. 11, 2012. The temperature that night was between -4 and -7 degrees, and Doyle was dressed in a short-sleeved t-shirt, a sleeveless undershirt, pajama pants under his jeans, and socks. Bowen was eventually identified as person of interest, and then a suspect.…

State v. Barrick

State v. Barrick, 2015 MT 94 (March 31, 2015) (Rice, J.; Cotter, J., concurring & dissenting) (4-1, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether district court properly ordered restitution for lost income; (2) whether evidence supported restitution for victim’ medical bills incurred as a result of defendant shooting victim’s family dog; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request for victim’s financial and medical records.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) yes, and (3) no.

Affirmed (2 & 3) and reversed (1) and remanded to amend the judgment

Facts: In September 2013, a jury convicted Barrick of criminal mischief and cruelty to animals for fatally shooting the Tuss family’s dog. During sentencing, the Tuss family asked for restitution of $9,357.14 to pay for the replacement cost of the dog, medical bills for Brett Tuss, lost wages for family members spent cooperating with the prosecution, and travel expenses associated with the prosecution of the offenses.…

Wheaton v. Bradford

Wheaton v. Bradford, 2013 MT 121 (May 7, 2013) (5-0) (Rice, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether Bradford’s expert was properly allowed; (2) whether Bradford’s expert failed to supplement his disclosure; (3) whether the motion for a new trial should have been granted.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) no; and (3) no.