Court Opinion

ID: 9510562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:57:17.585953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:02.584874
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TRIEWEILER
concurring.
¶134 I concur with the majority opinion. I write separately to specially concur with subpart (c) to Issue 11 of the majority’s opinion, found at paragraphs 125 to 133. While I agree with the majority’s resolution of Issue 11(c), I would arrive at that same result for different reasons.
¶135 I would vote as I did in State v. Waldrup (1994), 264 Mont. 456, 460, 872 P.2d 772, 775, (Trieweiler, T., dissenting) to overturn State v. Berger (1993), 259 Mont. 364, 856 P.2d 552. Because the plain language of § 46-11-503, MCA, does not require that an offense be part of the same transaction as a previously tried offense for the statute’s bar to apply, I conclude that further prosecution of Counts III, IV, and V are barred by the Defendant’s conviction of Count II, and the plain language of § 46-11-503, MCA.
¶136 For these reasons, I concur with the result of the majority opinion, but do not agree with everything stated in that opinion.
*204JUSTICE HUNT joins in the foregoing concurring opinion.