Court Opinion

ID: 9512084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:11:13.050695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:17.109357
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE NELSON,
dissenting.
¶58 I dissent from the Court’s decision.
¶59 I agree with the Court that Gerstner’s arguments as to Issue 1 were not properly preserved in the District Court and that we should not review the issue on appeal. However, Gerstner did not preserve his arguments as to Issue 2 either; thus, we likewise should not be addressing the merits of that issue. State v. Davis, 2000 MT 199, ¶¶ 38-39, 300 Mont. 458, 5 P.3d 547 (instructional theory not raised first in the trial court is waived); State v. LaFreniere, 2008 MT 99, ¶ 11, 342 Mont. 309, 180 P.3d 1161 (new arguments and legal theories4.e., those presented for the first time on appeal-will not be considered). Moreover, I do not agree with the Court’s analysis or conclusion under Issue 2; indeed, I agree with the arguments that Gerstner advances in his briefs on appeal, which I am not going to repeat here. Since the Court is affirming this case on the merits, I cannot concur in the Court’s decision.
¶60 On the merits, I would reverse and remand for trial on Issues 2, 3 and 4; I would not reach Issue 5.
¶61 I dissent.
JUSTICE COTTER joins the Dissent of JUSTICE NELSON.