Court Opinion

ID: 9550948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:45:43.856015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:48.739906
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ADAIR
(specially concurring):
I concur in the result but not in all that is said in the above opinion. In this jurisdiction there is no statutory authority for a bill of particulars in a criminal case and under the system of pleading prescribed by our Codes there is no place for it. Particularity to the point of absurdity in pleading in a criminal case is neither required nor tolerated. State v. Gondeiro, 82 Mont. 530, 535, 268 Pac. 507. Accordingly, I expressly concur in the overruling of all former holdings of this court to the contrary and in the holding of the majority herein that, under the law of this jurisdiction, no bill of particulars may be required or ordered in any criminal case.
I am of the opinion that the law is as stated in State v. Bast, 116 Mont. 329, 151 Pac. (2d) 1009, but that such ease is readily distinguishable from the instant case wherein the defendant Bosch admitted that when turning out to pass the vehicle ahead of him his automobile was then traveling at a rate of speed in excess of the maximum permitted by law. Aside from and exclusive of the testimony of the witness Hall, ample competent evidence was introduced to fully sustain the jury’s verdict and the judgment entered thereon and I find no reversible error in the record submitted on this appeal.