No. 12559 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1974 

THE STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

MRS. GLENN BUSH, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant : 

Garnaas, Hall, Riley and Pinsoneault, Missoula, 

Montana 

J. Robert Riley argued, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, 

Montana 

J. C. Weingartner, Deputy Attorney General, appeared, 

Helena, Montana 

Douglas G. Harkin, County Attorney, argued, Hamilton, 

Montana 

Submitted : January 17, 1974 

Decided Cf p I t; , 

Filed : - 

Clerk 
Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Defendant was convicted in the justice court of Ravalli County 

of assault in the third degree. On March 23, 1973, the justice court imposed 

a penalty consisting of a fine in the amount of $150 and 60 days in the 

county jail. The jail sentence was suspended. Following the imposition of 

sentence defendant filed a written notice of appeal to the district court of 

the fourth judicial district, in and for the county of Ravalli. Defendant 

did not post an appeal bond. 

The Ravall i county attorney moved to have the appeal dismissed on 

the grounds that defendant's failure to post a bond meant that the appeal had 

not been perfected. On May 11, 1973, the motion to dismiss was heard by the 

district court, Judge E. Gardner Brownlee, presiding. The district court 

dismissed defendant's appeal from the justice court decision for the reason 

that defendant did not furnish the required bond. Defendant appeals to this 

Court from the district court's dismissal. 

The sole issue presented for review is whether an appeal bond is 

necessary to perfect an appeal from the justice court to the district court. 

Section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947,governs appeals from the justice of 

the peace court to the district court and provides in part: 

"(b) The defendant may appeal to the district court by 

giving written notice of his intention to appeal within 

ten days (10) days (sic) after judgment. 

(c) * * * It shall be the duty of the defendant to perfect the appeal. " 

The Revised Commission Comment to section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, 

indicates that the burden is on the defendant to perfect an appeal from 

the justice court and specifically states: "This burden is sustained when 

the defendant has posted the requisite bond * * *". This language indicates 

an intent to require bond as a part of perfecting an appeal from the justice 

court to the district court. 

Furthermore, since the code was adopted as one comprehensive piece 

of legislation it should be considered in its entirety to determine the 
effect of any one section. In the instant case the sections on bail are 

most relevant. Section 95-1109, R.C.M. 1947,adrnits to bail as a matter 

of right a defendant who has been convicted in justice court and who intends 

to appeal. Section 95-1118, R.C.M. 1947,imposes as a condition of admission 

to bail after conviction the due prosecution of the appeal. The state maintains that the legislature was thinking of section 95-1118, R.C.M. 1947~when 

it enacted section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, thus giving the justice of the peace 

broad discretion in determining whether or not to require a bond on appeal. 

After reading the above-cited statutes together and the Revised 

Commission Comment, it is this Court's opinion that an appeal from the justice 

court to the district court is perfected when the defendant has posted the 

required bond, in addition to the other requirements. Since in this case 

defendant refused to post a bond when requested by the justice of the peace, 

the appeal was not perfected, and the district court properly dismissed the 

appeal on the state's motion. 

Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of defendanys appeal 

is affirmed. &\ 1. 

We concur: