State v. J.W.K. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                              04/06/2021
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    Case Number: DA 18-0665
    DA 18-0665
    FILED
    STATE OF MONTANA,
    APR 0 6 2021
    Bowen Greenwood
    Plaintiff and Appellee,                                     Clerk of Supreme Court
    St:ate nf VInntana
    v.                                                             ORDER
    J.W.K.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Appellant, J.W.K., has filed a petition for rehearing of this Court's March 2, 2021
    Memorandum Opinion affirming an order from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court,
    Gallatin County, sentencing him to ten years in prison with a five-year parole restriction.
    J.W.K. maintains this Court's memorandum opinion conflicts with controlling statutes
    or case law because this Court referred to J.W.K.'s statement to the District Court that he did
    not intend to present an "affirmative defense" of mental disease or defect. However, the
    record reflects that J.W.K. was explaining and acknowledging that he intended to hold the
    State to its burden of proof, including proving the mental element ofthe crime. Pursuant to
    § 46-15-323(3), MCA,"the defendant shall provide the prosecutor with written notice ofthe
    defendant's intention to introduce evidence at trial of the defense that because of a mental
    disease or disorder, the defendant did not have a particular state of mind that is an essential
    element ofthe offense charged." The District Court's colloquy with J.W.K. was aimed at
    assessing the need for a continuance. As it pertains to J.W.K.'s request for continuance, it is
    irrelevant whether J.W.K.'s evidence of mental disease or defect was referred to as an
    affirmative defense or a defense.
    Under M. R. App. P. 20, this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only if the
    opinion "overlooked some fact material to the decision," if the opinion missed a question
    provided by a party or counsel that would have decided the case, or if our decision
    "conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by the Court.
    M.R. App. P. 20. Having fully considered Appellant's petition, the Court concludes that
    rehearing is not warranted under M. R. App. P. 20.
    IT IS TFMREFORE ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
    The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties and counsel of
    record.
    Dated this   -L   day of April, 2021.
    "/"C't°r   )7
    C h ief Justice
    4
    Justices
    1 r____.,
    

Document Info

Docket Number: DA 18-0665

Filed Date: 4/6/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/6/2021