[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6353407,"mediaKeyId","2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee","parentId",2221334,"title","Committee Hears Contentious Debate on ‘Justifiable Use of Force’ Protections; Motion to Table Advances","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",16224000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee&start=16224&end=16224","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee/thumbnail_16224000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6353407/Montana/Committee-Hears-Contentious-Debate-on-Justifiable-Use-of-Force-Protections-Motion-to-Table-Advances","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6353407-61fe7b0e8ced7d39e7ef2213f46e57ee/orig.mp4?Expires=1775393818&Signature=h2izaJFCgdeLOd8muWt7r1WwmrWTTmKCV~gZB5BP37aoKP7sRpfR02jv~XKfDPSGZ0aUixzfIAlXV2fYV7qY7gRRZa7m5cvMmrf5FUvJRHANuVUh7-KpXAN9xIYZlmh99eqhbgsCLTuvptVP67UHTm6nmr-GYa3jeCfgSaHFMSO8WF373mfKb71LiZSYEMPc87LJz66hVlyTUGaHg02TTzrmOsykvFPqyzvBd~cSPsucUVgb1BbgKa2x-SWk76GxPGxWOxgNyGiaoFWTypLEd2zpwayVsDvZHVypHCmhNaxgrBhY0UalMH7bAQwiQ1u7N4E5bkvDl-znI0Z8ZYvczw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-01-31T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 127 prompted heated committee debate on Jan. 14 after sponsors and opponents argued over when and how the state should act when defendants raise an affirmative defense of justifiable use of force.

The bill as introduced aims to address liability and potential reimbursement for defendants who successfully assert a justifiable-use-of-force defense in cases involving violent felonies. Committee discussion focused on two contested amendments: one would have required the attorney general to determine whether a prosecution should continue when the defense is raised; another would have tied reimbursement or related procedures to a unanimous jury finding regarding that defense.

Supporters told the committee the measure was intended to protect individuals who lawfully defend themselves and to provide a mechanism to recover legal costs in narrow circumstances. A witness who described a prior case in which the defendant faced steep legal costs after a hung jury testified in favor of procedural clarity and financial relief.

Opponents and several senators argued the amendments went too far by shifting prosecutorial authority to the attorney general or by inserting impractical standards into jury findings. Senator Manzella and others expressed concern about moving decision‑making away from locally elected county attorneys. Several committee members raised separation‑of‑powers and due‑process questions.

After extended debate and two roll-call questions on amendments, the committee ultimately voted to table SB 127. The tabling vote ends immediate consideration in the committee and preserves the opportunity for the bill to be revived later in the session only by reconsideration.

Why it matters: SB 127 touches on criminal procedure and prosecutorial duties; changes could shift responsibility among local prosecutors, the attorney general, judges and juries and have fiscal effects if reimbursement were provided.

What’s next: With the bill tabled by committee vote, it will not move forward unless the committee later votes to take it off the table or the Senate takes other procedural steps. The substance of the amendments will likely resurface in future proposals or in floor debate if revived.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary 2025-01-31","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 127, which would create or modify a statutory process related to defendants asserting a justifiable-use-of-force defense, drew sharp exchanges over prosecutorial discretion and reimbursement of defense costs. After amendment attempts and debate, the committee voted to table the bill.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6353412,"Bill Would Let Donors Seek Court Remedies When Charities Break Endowment Restrictions, Advocates Say",506,10848000,11354000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee&start=10848&end=11354","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee/thumbnail_10848000.jpg","/articles/6353412/Montana/Bill-Would-Let-Donors-Seek-Court-Remedies-When-Charities-Break-Endowment-Restrictions-Advocates-Say","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6353412-e4e2164162325e6f75e9f96b2a06e566/orig.mp4?Expires=1775393818&Signature=Vw-exGzaXlwrOr8f1NUEQrQhrHIIMzreT6Hhy245Vlgi7LkCYfim1gyHrfunCHOJyJoV6mf3sK4kSsLWAyYowN1EOASNBiLYQg5v-H-rL-wNQUsHc4uExmvX6DmPyKUl-5jGsoIf08Aabjuxo9jpsgzWAG4v5ylffMI1sl547Ht2tpOTFB4nnrStam4-WIGP0mZpL8TajtJcbYiesNnkN6~b9y8NDX0btvbmXoiHaZcOGONmnxxtjzNeD4UESNvvC4ClQH0HbXftdG89JcINDhX5XASpqHRNRCCdr97ZuBpcXaYksgzztfxB8Ngyzl-4mhnZy8C~Fl4TVP-0fJa~aA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 134, presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 14, would authorize donors to petition a court when a charitable organization fails to follow a written restriction attached to an endowment gift.

Sponsor Sen. Greg Hertz told the committee the bill is designed to give private donors legal recourse when organizations fail to carry out donor-imposed restrictions on the use of endowed funds. The measure would permit a donor (or the donor’s legal representative) to file a complaint within six years after discovering the breach and would authorize courts to order remedies that align with the charitable purpose of the original gift.

Proponents — including the Philanthropy Roundtable and its representatives — argued the bill clarifies the legal status of restricted gifts and would encourage giving. Megan Schmidt, senior director of government affairs for the Philanthropy Roundtable, told the committee that gifts with donor restrictions are, in effect, contracts and that courts should have a clear statutory framework for enforcing them. Advocates emphasized that the bill does not permit donors to reclaim contributions for personal gain: remedies would be limited to re‑directing funds consistent with the charitable purpose.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the State Bar did not register formal opposition, and no opponents appeared at the hearing. The bill’s supporters said state attorneys general have discretion to pursue disputes but often decline, leaving donors with limited options.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill protects donor intent and makes explicit the courts' role when an organization cannot or will not honor the terms of an endowment agreement. Backers argued the measure will increase donor confidence and charitable capital flow into Montana institutions.

What’s next: The committee closed the hearing and indicated technical amendments may follow. If advanced, the bill would add a statutory enforcement path for private donors and create new procedural steps for courts to resolve restricted-gift disputes.","Senate Bill 134 would create a legal path for donors to seek remedies if a charitable organization violates donor-imposed restrictions in an endowment agreement. Philanthropy groups told the committee the measure clarifies donor intent and encourages giving.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6353417,"Committee Hears Bill Letting Montanans 75 and Older Opt Out of Jury Service on Request",1372,9988000,11360000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee&start=9988&end=11360","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee/thumbnail_9988000.jpg","/articles/6353417/Montana/Committee-Hears-Bill-Letting-Montanans-75-and-Older-Opt-Out-of-Jury-Service-on-Request","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6353417-d44e4ef56c6e585b2d29eb1d0f961341/orig.mp4?Expires=1775393818&Signature=LgzeGoC4LY9~F70EWOQxuQ8-03Eup4AQk~b-JuYwW0piP40wO1~3B-yUuHeNwX-iuPIgeJkcyZv1GzCJ3OpEP9K9Z1PsGlncNx3YiTs0TsYHQd2eutcYKuLj5pB5gtJ0CVSsUbr1J2aTju7DQ-4ohWgWiibHLxUT1lwuBoeXnko3E-7T23cUxccvCNBGjSbp0p8l50l9HbtpJkQwRmKvX0uH3SPWTl4MmibciPvoXHDdnHAWxDMQCPFImkiWOHbzE~54eyWtZ9ZI8Uu8-ATyjLm6M0ECc-e67oCtah74RHs7I5rgFMLc5eyqNuM8jjLgXMLtVnbIq2cDQ0kAXHhwaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 137, which would permit Montanans age 75 or older to be excused from jury service upon request, drew supportive testimony at a Jan. 14 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sponsor Sen. Jeremy Trevis described the measure as an \"opt‑out\" accommodation for older citizens who may face long drives to courthouses and physical limitations that make full‑day service difficult in rural districts. \"On the request of a person who is 75 years of age or older, the court or jury commissioner shall excuse the person from jury service,\" Trevis explained during his opening remarks.

Supportive testimony included a range of local officials and county clerks. Russ Temple, a senator from District 14, and Pamela Harada, a Helena resident and 79-year-old supporter, described travel distances, mobility concerns and the prevalence of similar rules in other states. Elizabeth Ball, Roosevelt County clerk of district court and president of the Montana Association of Clerks of District Court, testified the bill would ease the administrative process for older residents and said clerks often receive requests for relief that are sensitive for seniors. Ball asked the committee to allow a simpler affidavit process rather than requiring medical certification for age‑based excusal.

No opponents registered at the hearing. Committee members asked procedural questions about whether the excusal is automatic or opt‑in; sponsor and clerks clarified that the bill creates an option for eligible jurors to be excused on request, not a mandatory removal from the pool.

Why it matters: The bill addresses a practical issue in jury administration for an aging population, especially in rural counties where travel to court facilities can be burdensome. It is a narrow procedural change with limited fiscal impact.

What’s next: The committee closed the hearing and did not take immediate action. If advanced, the bill would change jury‑selection procedures statewide and require clerks and jury commissioners to track age‑based excusal requests.","Senate Bill 137 would allow prospective jurors aged 75 or older to be excused from jury service upon request. Proponents cited rural travel distances and mobility issues; clerks of court asked for procedural simplicity rather than a physician's note.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_46":105,"_48":106,"_50":107,"_52":108,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":109,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":110,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6353421,"Committee Restores Tougher Penalties for Retail Theft in Response to Business and Law-Enforcement Concerns",2409,7487000,9896000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee&start=7487&end=9896","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee/thumbnail_7487000.jpg","/articles/6353421/Montana/Committee-Restores-Tougher-Penalties-for-Retail-Theft-in-Response-to-Business-and-Law-Enforcement-Concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6353421-f1212fd4ae641afd8ca6d5ac5654dd6f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775393818&Signature=VlYDb2ekRQ-qetlaphqjaqmrx1XXsQP7yxdRusosiUNZh7cw4F2yhxPE0pECDA1UAj2oAdbixzlqv7S8ap3bM1t0sipCZd-fdFcRnL4hpEV~l5qkdiMvAzCVhwytf~gezVoOipVPZMM0z0RAmT3AeJUZ1MSgZ8AiHc0OguwL-2AxfczZULue1cL2Mr06Ydh7QrtR0HUwtZHw8S8uwT376g9vtisQmP2jrOifKNPm2H2Dodo7hQQGhGozacqKBEMN6adZ3DK-oAPoJeMmTmCb3WGJtMdpB6lZfYE2Bnwtubh2XaxHsPDN7u-xZ0KSs3D9hNQSy6MhgEDeFMAWhreS-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard and later advanced Senate Bill 19 on Jan. 14, a bill that would raise penalties for many theft-related offenses and restore pre‑2017 statutory language on common-scheme offenses.

Sponsor Sen. Barry Usher described the bill as a corrective to House Bill 133 (2017) and the criminal-justice reforms that followed. \"HB 133 actually incentivized crime by assessing a fine of just $500 for stealing $1,500,\" Usher told the committee, and SB 19 would realign penalties to discourage repeat thefts.

Business and law‑enforcement groups offered the committee a string of first‑hand complaints. The Montana Retail Association, represented by president Brad Griffin, described rising losses and urged restoration of tougher penalties and a provision addressing aggressive \"push-out\" thefts. \"Ten years ago a member told me they were losing $1,000,000 a year out of one store. Today it's $2,000,000,\" Griffin said. County attorneys, sheriffs and police groups — including the Montana County Attorneys Association, Yellowstone County Sheriff Mike Linder and the Montana Police Protective Association — urged the committee to give judges wider sentencing options for repeat offenders and said current penalties left merchants and local law enforcement without effective tools.

Proponents emphasized that the bill would: (1) remove a dollar threshold from the statutory definition of a \"common scheme\" to allow prosecutors to rely on pattern evidence; (2) restore jail-time and fine ranges for repeat misdemeanor thefts; and (3) align penalties for failing-to-return leased property and related offenses with theft statutes. Several business groups — Enterprise Rent-A-Car, convenience-store and petroleum associations, NFIB and local chambers of commerce — described inventory losses and safety concerns.

Opponents included the ACLU of Montana and criminal-justice reform groups such as Catalyst Montana. Henry Seaton of the ACLU said SB 19 \"denies the reality we once recognized\" when lawmakers enacted reforms in 2017 and cautioned the measure would criminalize poverty and swell jail populations. Nicole Gomez of Catalyst Montana argued that incarceration does not reduce reoffending and urged investment in diversion, substance-use treatment and social services instead of enhanced penalties.

Officials from the Department of Corrections and the public-defender office appeared as informational witnesses to answer questions about jail capacity, costs and practical implementation.

Committee action: After testimony and debate, the committee adopted a technical amendment adding \"or registered mail\" to a notice provision and then voted to advance SB 19 to the full Senate. The committee recorded the bill as sent out of committee as amended.

Why it matters: The bill would change how Montana treats nonviolent property crime and could alter prosecutors' charging options, sentencing outcomes and local jail populations. Supporters said the change was needed to deter repeat thefts that impact small businesses; opponents warned of higher corrections costs and harms to people stealing for subsistence or because of substance use.

What's next: With the committee's approval, SB 19 moves to the Senate for further debate and possible amendment. Opponents and proponents both identified likely litigation and budget implications that could factor into floor debate.","Senate Bill 19, aimed at reversing portions of 2017 criminal justice changes for theft and related offenses, was debated by retailers, law enforcement and criminal-justice reformers. Supporters said penalties were needed to deter rampant shoplifting; opponents warned the change would criminalize poverty and increase jail populations.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_46":117,"_48":118,"_50":119,"_52":120,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":121,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":122,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6353425,"Lawmakers Hear Hours of Testimony on Bill to Require 10 Commandments Displays in Classrooms",6594,140000,6734000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee&start=140&end=6734","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2221334-f6fb2b7dce4edbb6567eeb8725d0d7ee/thumbnail_140000.jpg","/articles/6353425/Montana/Lawmakers-Hear-Hours-of-Testimony-on-Bill-to-Require-10-Commandments-Displays-in-Classrooms","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6353425-00b29cde9b3a7af514e0c5c1a265550f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775393818&Signature=k2YmJu-ZTgESQRrCQOmfqBJqXFX1lIXwmvgFUiNGoAPjH4tVjvFt5iOfRzn4hZPVjBmy3GySSEjyzDaeYWOWVKu24IpM82jGUkllSSt24IBtT3o-F1KtBa1WDiU4qPeIPFErjFJuyKGVKPEyQkkYvGOuSYAQFEDEyiaz-QKYW5-yJKFXnXj-f6USIyfUJI8m2BE9BEwc~oRqG4AAYYD91vF~OxdSfciHh2yrM5NCtUhwtDoq8oQq7fnGDCPcewaMmN~erMj9-t-e6pBN7S~Pz94BHdFZH4mjeFnalrh6UKXPW7prwn8vBd-XSfoTcBLtfiMicilRdV5VJhYFYgm0sQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 14 heard more than three hours of testimony on Senate Bill 114, which would require a plaque displaying the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom in Montana.

Supporters, including bill sponsor Sen. Bob Phelan and representatives from religious-right legal groups and advocacy organizations, told the committee the Ten Commandments are foundational to Western legal traditions and education. \"The Ten Commandments have profoundly influenced and shaped American law, government, and morality,\" sponsor Sen. Bob Phelan said during his opening remarks.

The bill prompted lengthy proponent testimony from groups and individuals including Matt Krause of First Liberty Institute, David Barton of WallBuilders Historical Organization, and representatives of the Montana Family Foundation and Montana Retail Association. Krause and Barton framed their support in legal and historical terms, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and examples of longstanding religious displays in public buildings. \"The history-and-tradition test now guides the Court's approach,\" Matt Krause said, arguing the Ten Commandments meet that standard.

Opponents — led by tribal representatives, civil rights groups and public-education officials — urged the committee to reject the bill. Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana said the measure \"blatantly violates\" the separation of church and state and Article II, Section 5, of the Montana Constitution. Several Native American witnesses, including Pat Yawake and Keaton Sunchild, warned the displays would be a painful symbol linked to forced assimilation and boarding-school-era abuses. \"Mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in schools privileges one religious perspective while marginalizing indigenous beliefs and other spiritual traditions,\" Keaton Sunchild said.

Other opponents included public-school officials, teachers and students who raised concerns about coercion, litigation costs and classroom neutrality. A student witness, Charles Snellman, said passage would likely trigger lawsuits and divert funds from education priorities.

The committee received submissions of legal analysis during the hearing. Witnesses from proponent organizations argued Stone v. Graham (1980), the case most often cited against posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms, hinged on an older legal test that the Supreme Court has since moved away from. Opponents pointed to the Stone decision and a recent federal injunction against a Louisiana law requiring Ten Commandments displays as controlling precedent for Montana.

The hearing drew broad public participation: dozens of in-person and online witnesses offered vocal and detailed testimony on history, law and community impact. Committee members asked about legal risk to the state, possible costs of anticipated litigation, and the impact of displays on Indigenous students.

The committee closed the hearing after extended public testimony and questions. No committee vote was recorded during the hearing; deliberations and any potential amendment or vote were not part of the public record on Jan. 14.

Why it matters: the bill would change what is posted inside public classrooms statewide and raise immediate constitutional questions. Supporters framed the measure as historical and educational; opponents described it as state endorsement of a particular religious tradition and warned of legal and community harms.

What’s next: The committee concluded the public hearing and reserved formal action for a future meeting. If the committee later votes to advance the bill, it is likely to prompt litigation, according to witnesses who opposed the measure.","The Montana Senate Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony for and against Senate Bill 114, a proposal to require displays of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Supporters called the displays historical; opponents said the measure violates the Establishment Clause and risks harm to Indigenous and non-Christian students.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee Hears Contentious Debate on ‘Justifiable Use of Force’ Protections; Motion to Table Advances

Bill Would Let Donors Seek Court Remedies When Charities Break Endowment Restrictions, Advocates Say

Committee Hears Bill Letting Montanans 75 and Older Opt Out of Jury Service on Request

Committee Restores Tougher Penalties for Retail Theft in Response to Business and Law-Enforcement Concerns

Lawmakers Hear Hours of Testimony on Bill to Require 10 Commandments Displays in Classrooms