Background
Jason Paul Kelly was charged with misdemeanor indecent exposure and pleaded not guilty in Lewis and Clark County Justice Court on September 1, 2023. After he requested a jury trial, the court scheduled trial for February 20, 2024—within Montana’s six-month statutory period for bringing a misdemeanor defendant to trial.
In January 2024, Kelly moved to waive a jury and have the case reset for a bench trial at the court’s “earliest convenience.” The court granted the motion and set trial for March 22, about three weeks after the statutory deadline. Kelly moved to dismiss the charge the day before trial, arguing that he had not caused the delay. The Justice Court denied dismissal, and the District Court affirmed on intermediate appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. Section 46-13-401(2), MCA, requires dismissal when a misdemeanor defendant is not tried within six months, absent good cause, but its protection does not apply when trial has been postponed upon the defendant’s motion.
Kelly’s motion requested that the existing jury trial be replaced with a bench trial scheduled at the court’s earliest convenience and supplied a proposed order with the new date left blank. The Court held that the motion had the incidental, if not intentional, effect of postponing trial. Although the lower courts improperly referenced the constitutional speedy-trial analysis from State v. Ariegwe when Kelly had raised only a statutory claim, Kelly was not entitled to dismissal under the statute. The Court therefore did not address whether good cause independently justified the delay.
Key Takeaways
- A misdemeanor defendant cannot invoke Montana’s six-month dismissal rule when the defendant’s own motion postpones trial.
- A motion need not expressly waive speedy-trial rights; its practical effect on the trial date can make the statutory protection unavailable.
- The constitutional speedy-trial framework does not govern a claim based solely on Montana’s misdemeanor speedy-trial statute.
Why It Matters
Defense counsel seeking to change a trial’s format or date should preserve statutory timing concerns expressly and consider how the requested relief may affect the existing setting. A broadly worded request to reschedule at the court’s convenience may be treated as a defendant-caused postponement even if delay was not the stated objective.
The decision is a memorandum opinion that may not be cited and does not serve as precedent under the Montana Supreme Court’s Internal Operating Rules.