 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Coker4/5/2005
298 Mont. 358, 26, 2 P.3d 204, 26; State v. VanKirk, 2001 MT 184, 40, 306 Mont. 215, 40, 32 P.3d 735, 40. The telephonic testimony of Carnline occurred during the trial. It can be assessed for its impact. Thus, even were it to be considered error, which it is not, it would not be structural error.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted Carnline to testify by telephone. Affirmed.
JOHN WARNER
We Concur:
KARLA M. GRAY
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
PATRICIA O. COTTER
JIM RICE
|