 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Price, DA 06-0359,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By not objecting, defendant waived, under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-20-104(2), various claims of error of the admission of evidence under Mont. R. Evid. 404(b); the trial court did not err under Mont. R. Evid. 702 in admitting a doctor's expert testimony about the harm effects from a stun gun, given his qualifications and helpfulness to the jury.
|
|||||
| State v. Schoonover, DA 06-0193,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(2), defendant was not permitted to withdraw his no contest pleas to family member assault and two charges of felony incest. He provided no evidence that the effects of Paxil impacted his ability to plead voluntarily. Counsel's alleged deficiencies did not affect defendant's decision to plead no contest.
|
|||||
| State v. Tennell, DA 06-0304,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court rejected defendant's claim of ineffective assistance because (1) while the prosecutor's comments were improper, there were not egregious enough to a degree that defendant was denied a fair trial, and (2) because defendant's erratic driving was relevant to the charges he was facing, counsel was not obligated to object.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
