Summary
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Phyllis Jamison's motion to dismiss after her convictions in justice court for disorderly conduct and assault. The court held that a trial de novo in district court following an appeal from a non-record justice court is a continuation of the original jeopardy and therefore does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Montana Constitution.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant's appeal from a conviction in a nonrecord justice court for a trial de novo in district court constitutes a second jeopardy in violation of the Montana Constitution.
Holdings
- An appeal to district court for a trial de novo following conviction in a justice court that is not of record is a continuation of the same jeopardy that attached in justice court and does not violate Article II, Section 25 of the Montana Constitution.
Key quotations
“The new trial afforded by Article VII, Sec. 4(2) of the Montana Constitution and § 46-17-311(1), MCA, is a continuation of the same jeopardy and does not contravene the prohibition against double jeopardy in Article II, Sec. 25 of the Montana Constitution.” (¶ 6)
Factual background
In 2011, Phyllis Jamison was convicted in Missoula County Justice Court of misdemeanor disorderly conduct and assault. She appealed to the District Court, where she sought dismissal based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct and the claim that a new trial would violate double jeopardy. The District Court denied dismissal, and the Montana Supreme Court considered only the double-jeopardy issue.
Procedural history
Jamison was convicted in Missoula County Justice Court of disorderly conduct and assault. After appealing to the District Court and moving to dismiss based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct and double jeopardy, she appealed the District Court's denial of that motion. The Supreme Court limited the appeal to the double-jeopardy issue and affirmed.