Montana Code 46-10-203. Disposition of defendant
Current as of: 2023 | Check for updates
|
Other versions
46-10-203. Disposition of defendant. (1) If from the evidence it appears that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the judge shall hold the defendant to answer to the court having jurisdiction of the offense.
Terms Used In Montana Code 46-10-203
- Answer: The formal written statement by a defendant responding to a civil complaint and setting forth the grounds for defense.
- Complaint: A written statement by the plaintiff stating the wrongs allegedly committed by the defendant.
- Court: means a place where justice is judicially administered and includes the judge of the court. See Montana Code 46-1-202
- Defendant: In a civil suit, the person complained against; in a criminal case, the person accused of the crime.
- Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
- Judge: means a person who is vested by law with the power to perform judicial functions. See Montana Code 46-1-202
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
- Offense: means a violation of any penal statute of this state or any ordinance of its political subdivisions. See Montana Code 46-1-202
- Probable cause: A reasonable ground for belief that the offender violated a specific law.
- State: when applied to the different parts of the United States, includes the District of Columbia and the territories. See Montana Code 1-1-201
(2)If it appears from the evidence that there is insufficient probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed or that the defendant committed it, the judge shall dismiss the complaint and discharge the defendant. The discharge of the defendant may not preclude the state from instituting a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.