The majority of cases before the Montana Supreme Court are decided based upon the written briefs submitted by the parties. However, the Court may decide that a case requires further discussion, in addition to what the parties have argued in their written briefs. In such cases, oral arguments are scheduled in open session before the Court. Approximately 15 cases a year are scheduled for oral argument.
Oral arguments are tightly structured and timed. The counsel for each party is allowed limited time to make an argument. The times typically range from 20 to 40 minutes and are set forth by the Court in the order setting oral argument.
While this format allows the counsel brief opportunity to further develop their arguments, it also gives the Court an opportunity to ask questions of the attorneys on points which the Court needs clarification.
A majority of oral arguments take place in the Montana Supreme Court Courtroom, located at the Joseph P. Mazurek Building, 215 N. Sanders, Helena, Montana. These may be viewed via live web stream: http://stream.vision.net/MT-JUD/. The Court does schedule a few arguments to be heard in different cities around the State. See the list of scheduled oral arguments below.
All oral arguments are open to the public.
Click here to see list of previous oral arguments
IN THE MATTER OF AUSTIN MILES KNUDSEN, An Attorney At Law. Oral Argument is set for Friday, March 28, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel charged Attorney General Austin Knudsen with 41 counts of misconduct due to actions taken by Knudsen and attorneys under his supervision in relation to two legal matters: Brown v. Gianforte, in which Knudsen appeared as counsel of record on behalf of Governor Gianforte, and McLaughlin v. Montana State Legislature, in which Knudsen appeared on behalf of the Legislature.
An adjudicatory panel of the Commission on Practice found ODC and Knudsen largely agreed as to what conduct occurred but disagreed whether the conduct violated the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct. The allegedly unprofessional conduct included: Knudsen’s office declaring that the Legislature would not abide by an Order of the Montana Supreme Court; Knudsen accusing the Court of being irrational, ludicrous, and engaged in judicial misconduct; Knudsen accusing the Court of biased, self-serving rulings; Knudsen accusing the Court of factual misstatements and misconduct; and Knudsen failing to comply with a court order requiring the immediate return of inappropriately disclosed documents. The Commission concluded Knudsen violated five rules of professional conduct and recommended he be suspended from the practice of law for 90 days.
Knudsen objects to the Commission’s conclusions and recommendation. In addition to denying that his conduct violated any rules of professional conduct, Knudsen alleges the Commission violated his due process rights, improperly excluded evidence, and failed to adequately set forth its reasoning regarding its conclusions of law. Knudsen further argues the Attorney General cannot be subject to discipline by the Commission because that implicates separation of powers. He also argues that, if the rules limit what he can say about court rulings, then the rules violate his First Amendment rights. Finally, he argues a 90-day suspension would be extreme and disproportionate discipline that would exacerbate the conflict between the branches of government.
APRIL
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANDREW JOHN SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for Friday, April 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in the Dennison Theatre, on the campus of the University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, with an introduction to the argument beginning at 9:30 a.m.
Andrew John Smith and Larry Patterson got into an altercation that resulted in Smith suffering a gunshot wound and Patterson suffering eight stab wounds. Patterson died from his injuries. The State charged Smith with deliberate homicide.
Smith disclosed that he intended to argue justifiable use of force and that he had undergone a psychological evaluation. Smith was later found fit to proceed.
Prior to trial, the District Court concluded that the defenses of justifiable use of force and mental disease or defect are mutually exclusive. The court declined to offer a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide because either defense would result in acquittal for deliberate homicide if the jury believed the defense.
During trial, the court informed the parties it had received a question from the jury during the State’s case-in-chief. However, the court determined it was an evidentiary question and it directed the bailiff to inform the jury that the court could not answer the question. The court declined to reveal the question to the parties because it did not want to influence counsels’ questioning of witnesses. Prior to closing arguments, the court informed the parties that it had received another question. Again, the court determined it was an evidentiary question and directed the bailiff to inform the jury the court could not answer the question. Neither counsel objected.
On appeal, Smith argues the District Court erred in denying him a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide. He further argues this Court should invoke plain error review to determine if his right to fundamentally fair proceedings was violated when the District Court responded to the jury questions without input of counsel.
IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL HEALTH OF T.W., Respondent and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for April 30, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.
The State petitioned to involuntarily commit T.W. The court convened a jury trial at T.W.’s request. T.W. also requested, and was granted leave, to view the trial via videoconference with the video turned off and the audio muted instead of appearing in person. The jury found T.W. suffered from a mental disorder but did not require commitment. The court then dismissed the petition.
After additional events occurred with T.W. over the weekend, the State filed a new petition for involuntary commitment the following Monday. T.W. again requested a jury trial. She also moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the State could not relitigate the same matter that a jury had just decided. The District Court denied the motion, concluding claim preclusion and issue preclusion did not apply.
At the second jury trial, the State objected to T.W. viewing the trial via videoconference with the video turned off and the audio muted. The court ruled that T.W. could attend via videoconference but her audio and video must remain on. After jury selection, T.W. requested to waive further appearance; the court denied the request. The second jury found that T.W. suffered from a mental disorder and required involuntary commitment.
On appeal, T.W. argues the District Court erred by forcing her to appear via videoconference because she has the statutory right to waive appearance. T.W. also argues the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss because the State’s second petition was barred by claim preclusion and/or issue preclusion; at a minimum, T.W. argues, the State should have been limited to introducing evidence only of events that occurred after the first jury’s decision.