State v. Reger

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge against him for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the State’s appeal was not premature and that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding.The State charged Defendant with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) in the justice court. Defendant successfully moved to dismiss the State’s case on the ground that there was insufficient probable cause for Defendant’s arrest. Following the justice court’s oral order dismissing the State’s case but prior to its issuance of the written order, the State appealed to the district court. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the State’s appeal was premature. The district court concluded (1) the State’s appeal was not premature; (2) the court had subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) there was sufficient probable cause to arrest Defendant. Defendant was subsequently convicted of DUI. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under Mont. Code ann. 46-17-311(2) and 46-20-103(20(a), the State’s appeal was not premature. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "State v. Reger" on Justia Law