State v. Davis, 371 P.3d 979

Kelly Davis was arrested for second-offense DUI (jailable offense) and tried in Park County Justice Court before Justice Linda Budeski, who is not a licensed attorney.
Two days after Davis’s arrest the county converted the justice court into a court of record; appeals from such courts are not trials de novo in district court.
Davis moved to dismiss, arguing trial before a non‑lawyer judge without a de novo district‑court option violated due process and the right to counsel; the justice court denied the motion and convicted him.
Davis appealed to the Sixth Judicial District; the district court denied his motion to dismiss, concluding constitutional rights were not violated.
The Montana Supreme Court granted leave for an out‑of‑time appeal and affirmed, holding (1) no due‑process violation and (2) no violation of the right to effective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial before a non‑lawyer justice of the peace (in a court of record without trial de novo) violates due process	State: historical practice and safeguards (record, appellate review, training) suffice	Davis: a lawyer‑judge is required for defendants facing incarceration; appellate review does not cure trial‑level errors or burdens	Held: No due‑process violation — record + de novo legal review in district court and training/safeguards suffice
Whether trial before a non‑lawyer judge denies right to effective assistance of counsel	State: counsel protects defendant’s rights; judge is neutral, not adversary; lay judge does not impair counsel’s performance	Davis: counsel’s effectiveness depends on a judge who understands legal arguments; non‑lawyer judge undermines meaningful representation	Held: No violation — right to counsel is preserved; requirement of lawyer‑judge not necessary to vindicate counsel’s role

North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1976) (upheld non‑lawyer judge trial when de novo trial was available)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1932) (right to be heard by counsel in certain capital cases)
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1934) (state procedures are permissible unless they offend fundamental principles of justice)
Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1972) (Supreme Court approval of lay magistrates in certain contexts)
Tsiosdia v. Rainaldi, 547 P.2d 553 (N.M. 1976) (upheld non‑lawyer municipal judge where record and safeguards allowed review)
Canaday v. Wyoming, 687 P.2d 897 (Wyo. 1984) (upheld lay judges where proceedings are recorded and reviewed)
Gordon v. Justice Court for Yuba Judicial Dist., 525 P.2d 72 (Cal. 1974) (found lawyer‑judge required where justice courts were not courts of record)
Egelhoff v. Montana, 518 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1996) (historical practice is primary guide to procedural fundamentalism)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (purpose and standards of the right to counsel)
Hernandez v. Board of County Comm’rs, 345 Mont. 1 (Mont. 2008) (Legislature may provide for something other than de novo appeals in district court)