Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the DUI Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecutors urge amending DUI 'stacking' law to count related endangerment convictions
Summary
Cascade County prosecutors recommended changing Montana's DUI stacking statute to treat criminal child endangerment and criminal endangerment (when tied to vehicle operation while intoxicated) as convictions that count toward prior DUI offenses, to prevent charge bargaining that evades required enhanced penalties and treatment.
Deputy county attorneys and prosecutors briefed the committee on a perceived statutory gap that can let defendants avoid DUI enhanced penalties by pleading to overlapping offenses.
Matthew Robertson and David Rickey told the committee Montana’s DUI prior‑offense statute currently lists only specific DUI convictions for purposes of determining second, third and subsequent offenses (61‑8‑1011 as read during testimony). They said related statutes — notably criminal child endangerment (45‑6‑628(1)(e)) and criminal endangerment (45‑5‑207) — can be charged as alternatives and sometimes used in plea bargaining. Because those convictions are not enumerated in the DUI stacking statute, a defendant convicted of child endangerment may not carry a formal DUI conviction on the record for stacking purposes, permitting subsequent DUI prosecutions to proceed as lower‑level offenses.
Robertson proposed a narrow statutory fix: amend the DUI conviction‑definition statute to include convictions under 45‑6‑628(1)(e) (criminal child endangerment tied to driving under the influence) and convictions under 45‑5‑207 where the underlying conduct involves operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The change would make such convictions count toward prior DUI offenses, discourage plea‑bargaining that evades DUI penalties, and shift more defendants into required treatment and graduated sanctions sooner.
Committee members asked for written draft language and for consideration of youth‑court implications where defendants are juveniles; Robertson suggested carve‑outs (for example, direct‑file statute provisions for 16+ youth). The committee asked staff to receive Robertson’s proposed interlineated draft and consider it for a future committee bill.
What’s next: Robertson agreed to supply his written redline to legislative staff. The committee will consider the draft and potential youth‑court or sentencing impacts before advancing any statutory change.
