Case Title: State v Mary Demontiney

Citation: 2007 MT 279N

Docket Number: 3a240235-7910-4fc5-bf0c-b9f7a07ea254

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED
Coetober 30 2007

DA 06-0622
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2007 MT-279N

 

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, F I L E D

MARY R. DEMONTINEY, OCT 3 0 2007
Ed Swi'thi
Ke urate cover

Defendant and Appellant.

 

   

 

APPEAL FROM: District Court ofthe Twelfth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Hill, Cause No, DC-06-007
Honorable David G. Rice, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:

Carl White, Attomey at Law, Havre, Montana,

 

For Appellee:

Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Ika Becker, Assistant
‘Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Cyndee L. Peterson, Hill County Atomey, Havre, Montana

 

‘Submitted on Briefs: September 12, 2007
Decided: October 30, 2007

Fit Qh fu
 

 

Just

 

Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court,

‘V1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(4)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shal be filed as a public document with the Clerk ofthe Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court's
Quarterly list of noncitable cases published inthe Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports,
{2 Mary R. Demontiney appeals from the judgment entered by the Twelfth Judicial
District Cour, Hill County, upon her guilty plea tothe felony offense of tampering with a
witness, having reserved the right to appeal the earlier denial of her motion to dismiss the
charge. In denying the motion to dismiss, the court reasoned, among other things, that the
‘person Demontiney had contacted regarding a law enforcement officer's theft investigation
‘Was a “witness"—as contemplated in §§ 45-7-206(1) and 45-2-101(80), MCA (2005)—
because the State of Montana “desired” his testimony at any trial concerning the alleged
theft. On appeal, Demontiney argues thatthe person was merely a potential witness because
the investigating officer was seeking only his unswor statement, rather than testimony, at
the time Demontiney contacted him.

{3 Wehave determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our
1996 Intemal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum

opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record that this appeal is without
‘merit because the matter is clearly controlled by settled Montana law that the District Court

correctly interpreted,

4 Affirmed,