reglab/statecodes huggingface dataset:
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article I. General Provisions › Rule 101. Scope

Rule 101. Scope.
(a) Proceedings generally. These rules govern all proceedings in all courts in the state of Montana with the exceptions stated in this rule.
(b) Rules of privilege. The rules with respect to privileges found in Article V apply at all stages of all actions, cases and proceedings.
(c) Rules inapplicable. The rules (other than those with respect to privileges) do not apply in the following situations:
(1) Preliminary questions of fact. The determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the court under Rule 104(a).
(2) Grand jury. Proceedings before grand juries.
(3) Miscellaneous proceedings. Proceedings for extradition or rendition; preliminary examinations and proceedings on applications for leave to file informations in criminal cases; sentencing; dispositional hearings in youth court proceedings; granting or revoking probation or parole; issuance of warrants for arrest, criminal summonses and notices to appear, and search warrants; and proceedings with respect to release on bail or otherwise.
(4) Summary proceedings. Proceedings, other than motions for summary judgment, where the court is authorized by law to act summarily.
(5) Other miscellaneous proceedings. Ex parte matters; and proceedings, when authorized by law, which are uncontested or nonadversary.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article I. General Provisions › Rule 102. Purpose and construction

Rule 102. Purpose and construction.
These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article I. General Provisions › Rule 103. Rulings on evidence

Rule 103. Rulings on evidence.
(a) Effect of erroneous ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and
(1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or
(2) Offer of proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.
(b) Record of offer and ruling. The court may add any other or further statement which shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. It may direct the making of an offer in question and answer form.
(c) Hearing of the jury. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury.
(d) Plain error. Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article I. General Provisions › Rule 104. Preliminary questions of admissibility

Rule 104. Preliminary questions of admissibility.
(a) Questions of admissibility generally. Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court. In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.
(b) Admissibility subject to a condition. Except as otherwise provided by law, when the admissibility of evidence depends upon proof of other connecting facts, the court may admit such evidence subject to the condition that further evidence be introduced sufficient to support a finding of those connecting facts. The order of proof may be regulated by the sound discretion of the court.
(c) Hearing of jury. Hearings on the admissibility of confessions shall in all cases be conducted out of the hearing of the jury. Hearings on other preliminary matters shall be so conducted when the interests of justice require or, when an accused is a witness and so requests.
(d) Testimony by accused. The accused does not, by testifying upon a preliminary matter, become subject to cross-examination as to other issues in the case.
(e) Weight and credibility. This rule does not limit the right of a party to introduce before the jury evidence relevant to weight or credibility.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article I. General Provisions › Rule 105. Limited admissibility

Rule 105. Limited admissibility.
When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article I. General Provisions › Rule 106. Remainder of or related acts, writings, or statements

Rule 106. Remainder of or related acts, writings, or statements.
(a) When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or recorded statement or series thereof is introduced by a party:
(1) an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part of such item or series thereof which ought in fairness to be considered at that time; or
(2) an adverse party may inquire into or introduce any other part of such item of evidence or series thereof.
(b) This rule does not limit the right of any party to cross-examine or further develop as part of the case matters covered by this rule.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article II. Judicial Notice › Rule 201. Judicial notice of facts

Rule 201. Judicial notice of facts.
(a) Scope of rule. This rule governs judicial notice of all facts.
(b) Kinds of facts. A fact to be judicially noticed must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.
(c) When discretionary. A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.
(d) When mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.
(e) Opportunity to be heard. A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken.
(f) Time of taking notice. Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.
(g) Instructing the jury. In a civil action or proceeding, the court shall instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. In a criminal case, the court shall instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article III. Presumptions › Rule 301. Presumptions in general

Rule 301. Presumptions in general.
(a) Presumption defined. A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action or proceeding.
(b) Classification and effect of presumptions.
(1) Conclusive presumptions are presumptions that are specifically declared conclusive by statute. Conclusive presumptions may not be controverted.
(2) All presumptions, other than conclusive presumptions, are disputable presumptions and may be controverted. A disputable presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of evidence contrary to the presumption. Unless the presumption is overcome, the trier of fact must find the assumed fact in accordance with the presumption.
(c) Inconsistent presumptions. If presumptions are inconsistent the court shall apply the presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of public policy. If considerations of public policy are of equal weight the court shall disregard both presumptions.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article III. Presumptions › Rule 302. Applicability of federal law in civil cases

Rule 302. Applicability of federal law in civil cases.
In civil actions and proceedings, the effect of a presumption respecting a fact which is an element of a claim or defense as to which federal law supplies the rule of decision is determined in accordance with federal law.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 401. Definition of relevant evidence

Rule 401. Definition of relevant evidence.
Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Relevant evidence may include evidence bearing upon the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 402. Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible

Rule 402. Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible.
All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by constitution, statute, these rules, or other rules applicable in the courts of this state. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time

Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 404. Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct, exceptions; other crimes; character in issue

Rule 404. Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct, exceptions; other crimes; character in issue.
(a) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(1) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same.
(2) Character of victim. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case or in an assault case where the victim is incapable of testifying to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
(3) Character of witness. Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in Article VI.
(b) Other crimes, wrongs, acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
(c) Character in issue. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is admissible in cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 405. Methods of proving character

Rule 405. Methods of proving character.
(a) Reputation or opinion. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.
(b) Specific instances of conduct. In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, or where the character of the victim relates to the reasonableness of force used by the accused in self defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person's conduct.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 406. Habit; routine practice

Rule 406. Habit; routine practice.
(a) Habit and routine practice defined. A habit is a person's regular response to a repeated specific situation. A routine practice is a regular course of conduct of a group of persons or an organization.
(b) Admissibility. Evidence of habit or of routine practice, whether corroborated or not, and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that conduct on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
(c) Method of proof. Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 407. Subsequent remedial measures

Rule 407. Subsequent remedial measures.
When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning instruction. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 20, 2007, eff. Oct. 1, 2007.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 408. Compromise and offers to compromise

Rule 408. Compromise and offers to compromise.
Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 409. Payment of expenses

Rule 409. Payment of expenses.
Evidence of payment of expenses occasioned by an injury or occurrence is not admissible to prove liability.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 410. Offer to plead guilty; nolo contendere; withdrawn plea of guilty

Rule 410. Offer to plead guilty; nolo contendere; withdrawn plea of guilty.
Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or a plea of nolo contendere, or of an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime, or of statements made in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers, is not admissible in any civil or criminal action, case, or proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer. This rule shall not apply to the introduction of voluntary and reliable statements made in court on the record in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers where offered for impeachment purposes or in a subsequent prosecution of the declarant for perjury or false statement.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits › Rule 411. Liability insurance

Rule 411. Liability insurance.
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article V. Privileges › Rule 501. Privileges recognized only as provided

Rule 501. Privileges recognized only as provided.
Except as otherwise provided by constitution, statute, these rules, or other rules applicable in the courts of this state, no person has a privilege to:
(1) refuse to be a witness;
(2) refuse to disclose any matter;
(3) refuse to produce any object or writing; or
(4) prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article V. Privileges › Rule 502. Identity of informer

Rule 502. Identity of informer.
(a) Rule of privilege. The United States or a state or subdivision thereof has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information relating to or assisting in an investigation of a possible violation of a law.
(b) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by an appropriate representative of the public entity to which the information was furnished.
(c) Exceptions and limitations.
(1) Voluntary disclosure; informer a witness. No privilege exists under this rule if the identity of the informer or the informer's interest in the subject matter of the informer's communication has been disclosed to those who would have cause to resent the communication by a holder of the privilege or by the informer's own action, or if the informer appears as a witness for the public entity.
(2) Testimony on relevant issue. If it appears in the case that an informer may be able to give testimony relevant to any issue in a criminal case or to a fair determination of a material issue on the merits in a civil case to which a public entity is a party, and the public entity invokes the privilege, the court shall give the public entity an opportunity to show facts relevant to determining whether the informer can, in fact, supply that testimony.
If the Court finds that the informer should be required to give the testimony, and the public entity elects not to disclose the informer's identity, the court on motion of the defendant in a criminal case shall dismiss the charges to which the testimony would relate, and the court may do so on its own motion. In civil cases, the court may make any order that justice requires.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article V. Privileges › Rule 503. Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure

Rule 503. Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure.
(a) General rule. A person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if the person or the person's predecessor while the holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter. This rule does not apply if the disclosure itself is privileged.
(b) Joint holders. Where two or more persons are joint holders of a privilege, a waiver of the right of a particular joint holder to claim the privilege does not affect the right of another joint holder to claim the privilege.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article V. Privileges › Rule 504. Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim the privilege

Rule 504. Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim the privilege.
A claim of privilege is not defeated by a disclosure which was (a) compelled erroneously or (b) made without opportunity to claim the privilege.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article V. Privileges › Rule 505. Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege

Rule 505. Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege.
The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceeding or upon a prior occasion, is not a proper subject of comment by the court or counsel. No inference may be drawn therefrom.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 601. Competency in general; disqualification

Rule 601. Competency in general; disqualification.
(a) General rule competency. Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules.
(b) Disqualification of witnesses. A person is disqualified to be a witness if the court finds that (1) the witness is incapable of expression concerning the matter so as to be understood by the judge and jury either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand the witness or (2) the witness is incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 602. Lack of personal knowledge

Rule 602. Lack of personal knowledge.
A witness may not testify as to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 603. Oath or affirmation

Rule 603. Oath or affirmation.
Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 604. Interpreters

Rule 604. Interpreters.
An interpreter is subject to the provisions of these rules relating to qualification as an expert and the administration of an oath or affirmation to make a true translation.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 605. Competency of judge as witness

Rule 605. Competency of judge as witness.
The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 606. Competency of juror as witness

Rule 606. Competency of juror as witness.
(a) At the trial. A member of the jury may not be called or testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the case in which the juror is sitting. If the juror is called to testify, the opposing party shall be afforded an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury.
(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith. Nor may a juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes.
However, as an exception to this subdivision, a juror may testify and an affidavit or evidence of any kind be received as to any matter or statement concerning only the following questions, whether occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or not: (1) whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention; or (2) whether any outside influence was brought to bear upon any juror; or (3) whether any juror has been induced to assent to any general or special verdict, or finding on any question submitted to them by the court, by a resort to the determination of chance.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 607. Who may impeach; party not bound by testimony

Rule 607. Who may impeach; party not bound by testimony.
(a) The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.
(b) No party is bound by the testimony of any witness.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 608. Evidence of character and conduct of witness

Rule 608. Evidence of character and conduct of witness.
(a) Opinion and reputation evidence of character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.
(b) Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.
The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by any other witness, does not operate as a waiver of the witness' privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters which relate only to credibility.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 609. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime

Rule 609. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime.
For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime is not admissible.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 610. Religious beliefs or opinions

Rule 610. Religious beliefs or opinions.
Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 611. Mode and order of interrogation and presentation; re-examination and recall; confrontation

Rule 611. Mode and order of interrogation and presentation; re-examination and recall; confrontation.
(a) Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
(b) Scope of cross-examination.
(1) Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.
(2) Evidence developed on cross-examination may be considered by the trier of fact as proof of any fact in issue in the case.
(c) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.
(d) Re-examination and recall. A witness may be re-examined as to the same matters to which the witness testified only in the discretion of the court, but without exception the witness may be re-examined as to any new matter brought out during cross-examination. After the examination of the witness has been concluded by all the parties to the action, that witness may be recalled only in the discretion of the court. This rule shall not limit the right of any party to recall a witness in rebuttal.
(e) Confrontation. Except as otherwise provided by constitution, statute, these rules, or other rules applicable to the courts of this state, at the trial of an action, a witness can be heard only in the presence and subject to the examination of all the parties to the action, if they choose to attend and examine.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 612. Writings used to refresh memory

Rule 612. Writings used to refresh memory.
If a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either
(1) while testifying, or
(2) before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice, an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce into evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony the court shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objection shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the court shall make any order justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects not to comply, the order shall be one striking the testimony or, if the court in its discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 613. Prior statements of witnesses

Rule 613. Prior statements of witnesses.
(a) Examining witness concerning prior statement. In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.
(b) Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in Rule 801(d)(2).
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 614. Calling and interrogation of witnesses by court

Rule 614. Calling and interrogation of witnesses by court.
(a) Calling by court. The court may, on its own motion or at the suggestion of a party, call witnesses and all parties are entitled to cross-examine witnesses thus called.
(b) Interrogation by court. The court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or a party; provided, however, that in trials before a jury, the court's questioning must be cautiously guarded so as not to constitute express or implied comment.
(c) Objections. Objections to the calling of a witness by the court or to the interrogation by it may be made at the time or at the next available opportunity when the jury is not present.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VI. Witnesses › Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses

Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses.
At the request of a party, the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party's cause.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony › Rule 701. Opinion testimony by lay witnesses

Rule 701. Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony › Rule 702. Testimony by experts

Rule 702. Testimony by experts.
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony › Rule 703. Basis of opinion testimony by experts

Rule 703. Basis of opinion testimony by experts.
The facts or data in a particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in a particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony › Rule 704. Opinions on ultimate issue

Rule 704. Opinions on ultimate issue.
Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony › Rule 705. Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion

Rule 705. Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion.
The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VIII. Hearsay › Rule 801. Definitions

Rule 801. Definitions.
The following definitions apply under this article:
(a) Statement. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.
(b) Declarant. A declarant is a person who makes a statement.
(c) Hearsay. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
(d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if:
(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, or (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of subsequent fabrication, improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or
(2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity, or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of that relationship, or (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VIII. Hearsay › Rule 802. Hearsay rule

Rule 802. Hearsay rule.
Hearsay is not admissible except as otherwise provided by statute, these rules, or other rules applicable in the courts of this state.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VIII. Hearsay › Rule 805. Hearsay within hearsay

Rule 805. Hearsay within hearsay.
Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of a combined statement conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article VIII. Hearsay › Rule 806. Attacking and supporting the credibility of declarant

Rule 806. Attacking and supporting the credibility of declarant.
When a hearsay statement, or a statement defined by Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E) has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked and, if attacked, may be supported by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time, inconsistent with the declarant's hearsay statement, is not subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is entitled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 7, 1990, eff. June 7, 1990; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 26, 1990, eff. June 26, 1990; amd. Sup. Ct. Ord. June 20, 2007, eff. Oct. 1, 2007.
2023 Montana Code Annotated › Title 26. Evidence › Chapter 10. Montana Rules of Evidence › Part Article IX. Authentication and Identification › Rule 901. Requirement of authentication or identification

Rule 901. Requirement of authentication or identification.
(a) General provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
(b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:
(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.
(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.
(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.
(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.
(5) Voice identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.
(6) Telephone conversations. Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business, if (A) in the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or (B) in the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
(7) Public records or reports. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.
(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.
(9) Process or system. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.
(10) Method provided by statute or rule. Any method of authentication or identification provided by statute, these rules, or other rules applicable in the courts of this state.
History: Ad. Sup. Ct. Ord. 12729, Dec. 29, 1976, eff. July 1, 1977.