Tichenor relies on State v. David (1994), 266 Mont. 365, 880 P.2d 1308, to support his argument that the charges of burglary and stalking should be dismissed. However, David is distinguishable from the case sub judice because in David, the District Court denied the State’s motion for leave to file an Information charging the defendant with stalking because there was not sufficient probable cause. David, 266 Mont, at 366-67, 880 P.2d at 1309. Here, the District Court had already granted the State’s motion for leave to file an Information against Tichenor, thus establishing that the State had probable cause to bring the charges. The State had no further burden of proof with regard to these charges until trial. See State v. Nichols, 1998 MT 271, ¶ 4, 291 Mont. 367, ¶ 4, 970 P.2d 79, ¶ 4 (<HOLDING>). ¶23 Accordingly, we hold that the District
holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion holding that the defendants challenge to the evidence through a pretrial motion to dismiss was premature because such a challenge can only be made after the state has had an opportunity to present its evidence to the trier of fact holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court holding that a challenge to the proper weight of the evidence is a question of fact outside this courts jurisdiction