Opinion ID: 879574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Matson's motion to dismiss at the close of the State's case? Matson contends that the State failed to prove Matson used a weapon and, therefore, the court should have granted his motion. We review this issue under the provisions of § 46-16-403, MCA, which states: When, at the close of the state's evidence or at the close of all the evidence, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding or verdict of guilty, the court may, on its own motion or on the motion of the defendant, dismiss the action and discharge the defendant. [Emphasis added.] In construing the statute, we note that the motion for dismissal is conditioned upon insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilty. A motion to dismiss under § 46-16-403, MCA, should be granted only where there is no evidence upon which a trier of fact could base a verdict. State v. White Water (Mont. 1981), 634 P.2d 636, 638, 38 St.Rep. 1664, 1666. Based upon the State's presentation of direct evidence on the use of a weapon, we hold that the trial court exercised sound discretion and properly allowed the trial to proceed.