State v. Beavers

40 Citing cases

  1. State v. Becker

    326 Mont. 364 (Mont. 2005)   Cited 17 times
    In Becker, a defendant alleged that the District Court erred by sentencing him for both possession of methamphetamine and production or manufacture of methamphetamine.

    ¶ 14 A district court's decision to deny a defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis of double jeopardy presents a question of law that this Court reviews on appeal to determine whether the district court's interpretation of the law is correct. State v. Beavers, 1999 MT 260, ¶ 21, 296 Mont. 340, ¶ 21, 987 P.2d 371, ¶ 21 (citing State v. Barker (1993), 260 Mont. 85, 88, 858 P.2d 360, 362; Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 474-75, 803 P.2d 601, 603). ¶ 15 Becker concedes on appeal that his motion to dismiss in the District Court dealt exclusively with his federal constitutional rights and that he did not address the double jeopardy protections provided by the Montana Constitution or Montana's statutory protection against double jeopardy found at § 46-11-410, MCA, which provides:

  2. State v. Russell

    347 Mont. 301 (Mont. 2008)   Cited 20 times
    Affirming rejection of offered special unanimity instruction not error where general unanimity instruction adequate under charged offenses and facts at issue

    ¶ 22 As used in § 46-1-202(9)(a), MCA, the term "facts" refers to the statutory elements of the offense, not the individual facts of the case. State v. Beavers, 1999 MT 260, ¶ 30, 296 Mont. 340, ¶ 30, 987 P.2d 371, ¶ 30. ¶ 23 Here, Russell was charged with felony homicide under § 45-5-102(1)(b), MCA. Felony homicide can be accomplished by multiple means under the statute.

  3. State v. Lindberg

    347 Mont. 76 (Mont. 2008)   Cited 36 times
    In Lindberg, for example, the district court allowed the defendant in a sexual abuse case to present evidence that his objection to the victim's relationship with another person provided motivation to fabricate charges of abuse to remove the defendant from the household.

    ¶ 27 We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and we afford district courts "broad discretion . . . to limit the scope of cross-examination to those issues it determines are relevant to trial." State v. Beavers, 1999 MT 260, ¶ 20, 296 Mont. 340, ¶ 20, 987 P.2d 371, ¶ 20. ¶ 28 Issue One:Did the prosecution improperly comment upon the credibility of the witnesses and assert that Lindberg was responsible for establishing his innocence, thereby denying Lindberg his right to due process and a fair and impartial trial?

  4. State v. Wilson

    340 Mont. 191 (Mont. 2007)   Cited 29 times

    ¶ 18 We apply the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court's discretionary rulings in a criminal case. State v. Beavers, 1999 MT 260, ¶ 20, 296 Mont. 340, ¶ 20, 987 P.2d 371, ¶ 20. "Abuse of discretion occurs only when the district court acted arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice." State v. English, 2006 MT 177, ¶ 23, 333 Mont. 23, ¶ 23, 140 P.3d 454, ¶ 23 (quotation omitted).

  5. State v. Cech

    338 Mont. 330 (Mont. 2007)   Cited 17 times
    In Cech, ¶¶ 9-10 (citations omitted), we applied a limited "jurisdictional grounds exception" utilized by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in concluding the defendant who had pled guilty did not waive his double jeopardy assertion — despite failing to reserve the issue for appeal — because the record before the district court was sufficient for the court to determine whether the State lacked power to bring the charges at issue in light of constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.

    ¶ 7 A district court's denial of a defendant's motion to dismiss a charge on the basis of double jeopardy presents a question of law that this Court reviews for correctness. State v. Beavers, 1999 MT 260, ¶ 21, 296 Mont. 340, ¶ 21, 987 P.2d 371, ¶ 21. DISCUSSION

  6. State v. Doyle

    337 Mont. 308 (Mont. 2007)   Cited 11 times

    ¶ 43 The district court maintains broad discretion in its decision to limit the scope of cross examination. State v. Beavers, 1999 MT 260, ¶ 20, 296 Mont. 340, ¶ 20, 987 P.2d 371, ¶ 20. We refuse to overturn the district court's evidentiary rulings absent an abuse of discretion.

  7. Adams v. State

    336 Mont. 63 (Mont. 2007)   Cited 38 times
    Affirming the district court's denial of Adams' petition for postconviction relief following the remand in 2002

    We give broad discretion to a district court in formulating jury instructions. State v. Beavers, 1999 MT 260, ¶ 20, 296 Mont. 340, ¶ 20, 987 P.2d 371, ¶ 20. ¶ 21 We review a sentence for legality only.

  8. State v. Price

    331 Mont. 502 (Mont. 2006)   Cited 33 times

    ¶ 17 We review discretionary trial court rulings, including trial administration issues and evidentiary rulings, for "abuse of discretion." State v. Beavers, 1999 MT 260, ¶ 20, 296 Mont. 340, ¶ 20, 987 P.2d 371, ¶ 20. In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion, the question is not whether the reviewing court agrees with the trial court, but rather whether the trial court acted arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice.

  9. State v. Newman

    330 Mont. 160 (Mont. 2005)   Cited 11 times

    "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to jury instructions that cover every issue or theory having support in the evidence." State v. Beavers, 1999 MT 260, ¶ 23, 296 Mont. 340, ¶ 23, 987 P.2d 371, ¶ 23. Obviously, the converse is not true: a defendant cannot be forced to bear an instruction which is not supported by the evidence.

  10. State v. Sheehan

    329 Mont. 417 (Mont. 2005)   Cited 9 times

    Our standard of review of such rulings in a criminal case is "abuse of discretion." State v. Beavers, 1999 MT 260, ¶ 20, 296 Mont. 340, ¶ 20, 987 P.2d 371, ¶ 20. See also Porter v. Porter (1970), 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538, 541.