Matter of C. K., 2017 MT 69

C.K., with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, stopped taking prescribed medication and left a community treatment program (PACT).
After becoming agitated and disruptive at St. Peter’s Hospital ER, police responded; officers observed threatening and aggressive conduct, including threats about a gun and lunging/spitting at officers.
Examiner Kim Waples evaluated C.K., prepared a written preliminary mental-health report summarizing her observations and third-party accounts (father, Sgt. Wilson, ER doctor, Hays‑Morris staff), and recommended commitment.
At the commitment hearing, Waples testified and, over objection, repeated substantive third‑party reports from Hays‑Morris records and her evaluation report as part of the basis for her expert opinion that C.K. posed an imminent risk.
The District Court committed C.K. to Montana State Hospital for 90 days; C.K. appealed, arguing the court improperly admitted and relied upon inadmissible hearsay repeated by the expert.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (C.K.)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion by admitting and considering hearsay repeated by the examining expert	Waples impermissibly repeated inadmissible hearsay as substantive evidence; Rule 703 does not permit an expert to repeat the substance of out‑of‑court statements before the factfinder	Expert may rely on and reference hearsay as the basis for opinion under M. R. Evid. 703 so long as it is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts and admission is subject to Rule 403 limitation	Court affirmed: Rule 703 allows an expert to rely on and reference otherwise inadmissible hearsay to explain the basis of an opinion, subject to Rule 403 limits; no abuse of discretion in admitting Waples’ testimony

Weber v. BNSF Ry. Co., 362 Mont. 53 (affirming limits on expert transmission of unreliable hearsay)
Tripp v. Jeld‑Wen, 327 Mont. 146 (affirming Rule 403 exclusion of prejudicial Rule 703 material)
Reese v. Stanton, 381 Mont. 241 (expert may reference underlying hearsay as basis of opinion but court may limit substance)
Perdue v. Gagnon Farms, Inc., 314 Mont. 303 (expert improperly admitted third‑party statements as substantive proof)
State v. Bailey, 320 Mont. 501 (expert may rely on inadmissible evidence under Rule 703 but should not disclose its substance to jury absent proper purpose)
In re J.M., 217 Mont. 300 (examining professional may form opinion based on hearsay under Rule 703 in commitment proceedings)