file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-251%20Opinion.htm

No. 99-251

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2000 MT 175N

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HAMED CHOWDHURY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula,

The Honorable John W. Larson, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-251%20Opinion.htm (1 of 4)3/28/2007 4:07:57 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-251%20Opinion.htm

For Appellant:

Hamed Chowdhury, pro se, Missoula, Montana

For Respondent:

Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; C. Mark Fowler, Assistant

Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney; Dale Mrkich, Deputy 

County Attorney, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: June 15, 2000 

Decided: July 6, 2000 

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-251%20Opinion.htm (2 of 4)3/28/2007 4:07:57 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-251%20Opinion.htm

Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court.

1. ¶Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal 

Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be 

filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be 

reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter 

Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases 

issued by this Court. 

2. ¶Hamed Chowdhury appeals his conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol 

(DUI), first offense, in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, on 

appeal from the Missoula County Justice Court. We affirm.

3. ¶Chowdhury states the issues on appeal as whether the District Court violated his 

right to discovery by not requiring that he personally be present at an omnibus 

hearing, and whether the court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the 

results of the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test. 

4. ¶Chowdhury has not filed a transcript of the District Court trial. The Court cannot 

therefore determine from the record whether Chowdhury objected at trial to the 

alleged lack of discovery or to admission of the Intoxilyzer 5000 results, or what the 

court's rulings were on any such objections. In fact, Chowdhury concedes in his 

briefs that he failed to timely move for the exclusion from evidence of the results of 

the Intoxilyzer 5000 test and that he did not object to the introduction of this 

evidence during trial. 

5. ¶Generally, this Court considers for review on appeal only those issues raised in the 

pleadings or otherwise raised before the district court. State v. Herrera, 1998 MT 

173, ¶ 17, 289 Mont. 499, ¶ 17, 962 P.2d 1180, ¶ 17. We will not hold a district 

court in error on a subject on which it was not given an opportunity to correct itself. 

State v. Long (1986), 223 Mont. 502, 506, 726 P.2d 1364, 1366. Absent any 

indication of record that Chowdhury made timely objections on either of his claims 

of error, we conclude that he has waived these claims and is therefore barred from 

raising them on appeal.

6. ¶The decision of the District Court is affirmed. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-251%20Opinion.htm (3 of 4)3/28/2007 4:07:57 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-251%20Opinion.htm

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

We concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-251%20Opinion.htm (4 of 4)3/28/2007 4:07:57 PM