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://youtube.com/channel/UCZISYUyhlnST7YrRIfu-p9g/live. 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
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RONALD WILLIAM KULCZYK, Defendant and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for Thursday, June 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, in Helena.
Ronald Kulczyk was charged with felony sexual abuse of a child after he allegedly attempted to meet a person, whom he believed was a 14-year-old boy, for sexual purposes. However, Kulczyk had been communicating with an undercover officer as part of a “sting” operation. Kulczyk moved to dismiss the charges, arguing he did not contact an actual minor and no sexual contact of any kind occurred with anyone. The trial court denied dismissal and the case proceeded to trial. Kulczyk then moved for a directed verdict, arguing that, as a matter of law, his alleged victim needed to be a “human being,” not a fictional child. The court denied the motion and Kulczyk was ultimately convicted on both counts.
On appeal, Kulczyk argues his charges should have been dismissed prior to trial because the statute prohibiting sexual abuse of children, at the time Kulczyk was charged, did not include language allowing for the alleged victim to be “a law enforcement officer using an undercover or fictitious identity” as the Legislature later amended.
Kulczyk also argues his charges should be dismissed due to “outrageous government conduct” because the arrest team initiated contact, repeatedly lied to him, and solicited and induced him to commit a crime over the course of several months of engagement.
Kulczyk also argues the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, on the basis that he waived Miranda rights, because the arresting officers threatened him with obstruction charges if he refused to “voluntarily” provide his cellphone passcode.
Finally, Kulczyk argues his sentence is illegal because the court imposed a sentence enhancement that is not available if there is no actual child victim.