Opinion ID: 2570398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: In reviewing the District Court's judgment we consider the following issues:

Text: ś 3 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Susan's conviction of the felony offense of criminal endangerment under § 45-5-207(1), MCA. [1] ś 4 2. Whether the jury was properly instructed on the elements of criminal endangerment. ś 5 3. Whether Susan's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct was properly denied. ś 6 4. Whether the videotapes of interviews with Wesley Hocevar should have been admitted into evidence. ś 7 5. Whether the expert testimony on MSBP was properly admitted. ś 8 6. Whether Susan's motion to sever counts I and II and counts III, IV, and V for separate trials was properly denied. ś 9 7. Whether Dr. David Southall's testimony was properly admitted. ś 10 8. Whether evidence concerning Zachary Hocevar's death was properly admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid. ś 11 9. Whether considering the deaths of Mathew and Zachary Hocevar in determining Susan's sentence for criminal endangerment violated Susan's right to due process under Article II, Section 17 of the Montana Constitution. ś 12 10. Whether Susan should have been classified a first-time, nonviolent offender for sentencing purposes. ś 13 11. Whether Susan's renewed motion to dismiss counts III, IV, and V based on double jeopardy grounds was properly denied. a. Whether Susan's motion to dismiss counts III, IV, and V for insufficiency of the evidence should have been granted, barring further prosecution pursuant to § 46-16-403, MCA. b. Whether further prosecution of counts IV and V is barred by the hung jury on Count III. c. Whether further prosecution of counts III, IV, and V is barred by § 46-11-503, MCA?