State v. D. Burton
2017 MT 306
Mont.2017Background
- Burton appeals the district court’s denial of a § 46-11-504(1), MCA, motion to dismiss in a double jeopardy/multiple-prosecution context.
- The state amended the information in 2012 to remove offenses subject to federal indictment and to align counts with the federal charges.
- Burton was later convicted in federal court of possession of stolen firearms, while state charges remained pending.
- In 2014-2015, a state trial proceeded on remaining charges; firearms evidence tied to federal charges was excluded.
- Burton appeals pre-final-judgment, challenging only three state charges; the court addresses statutory double jeopardy and same-transaction issues via statutory framework and case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a defendant appeal denial of a 46-11-504(1) motion before judgment? | State: no final judgment, traditionally no interim appeal. | Burton: pre-judgment challenges permissible under Abney-based and supervisory-control paths. | Interim appeals for statutory double jeopardy claims are not authorized; pre-judgment review via supervisory control may be used. |
| Did the District Court err denying § 46-11-504(1) dismissal given Burton’s federal firearm conviction? | State: statutory double jeopardy bars subsequent state prosecution arising from same transaction. | Burton: three-prong test not satisfied for offenses tied to firearms vs. non-firearm thefts; same-transaction requirement not met. | No error for count-specific applications; prongs not all satisfied for the challenged counts; affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cline, 371 Mont. 18 (2013 MT 188) (three-prong test for § 46-11-504 applies; equivalent offenses required; same-transaction analysis)
- State v. Neufeld, 212 P.3d 1063 (2009 MT 235) (same transaction where conduct and victim/time align)
- State v. Gazda, 82 P.3d 20 (2003 MT 350) (same-transaction analysis; temporal/spatial factors matter)
- State v. Fox, 366 Mont. 10 (2012 MT 172) (different victims/time can break same transaction)
- State v. Heddings v. State, 362 Mont. 90 (2011 MT 228) (different victims/offenses can negate same transaction)