Summary
The Idaho Supreme Court vacated Michael Ryan McDermott’s second-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that an additional jury instruction defining malice as the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal cause or excuse was legally incorrect and materially inconsistent with the proper homicide-malice instruction, creating uncertainty about the basis for the verdict. The court also addressed, but did not find reversible error in, the initial-aggressor self-defense instruction and provided guidance for retrial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by giving the jury an additional instruction defining malice as the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal cause or excuse.
- Whether the additional malice instruction misstated the mental state required for second-degree murder and improperly lowered the State's burden of proof.
- Whether the initial-aggressor jury instruction misstated Idaho self-defense law by failing to specify the required burden of proof, withdrawal and communication requirements, and the level of conduct necessary to make a person an initial aggressor.
- Whether the initial-aggressor instruction constituted reversible error.
Holdings
- Instruction No. 29 was an incorrect statement of Idaho law because it defined malice as the intentional doing of a wrongful act, converting the required mens rea into an actus reus inquiry and divorcing malice from the killing.
- The error was not harmless because the inconsistent instruction could have allowed the jury to find second-degree murder without finding malice aforethought or an intent to kill, and the court could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have convicted absent the error.
- McDermott failed to establish that Instruction No. 22 was erroneous under the arguments presented, including his argument that an initial aggressor must use or provoke deadly force.
- If the district court determines that an initial-aggressor instruction is warranted at the new trial, the instruction should make clear that the State bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the initial aggressor and that self-defense remains available if the defendant withdrew and communicated withdrawal by word or act.
Key quotations
“Therefore, we hold that Instruction No. 29 was an incorrect statement of law, and the district court did not “act[] consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it[.]”” (8)
“Instruction No. 29 thereby drastically reduced the burden of proof on the State with respect to the malice element.” (10)
“Therefore, we cannot conclude it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found McDermott guilty of second-degree murder absent the erroneous instruction.” (10)
“For the reasons stated above, we vacate McDermott’s conviction. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (15)
Factual background
In the early morning of March 15, 2019, Michael McDermott went to Alicia Flynn's recreational vehicle seeking methamphetamine. After learning that Robert Waholi was inside, McDermott slammed Flynn's head in the trailer door twice. Waholi then exited the RV carrying a large double-edged axe, and McDermott shot him through the heart. McDermott admitted the shooting but claimed he acted in self-defense.
Procedural history
A jury convicted McDermott of second-degree murder after a five-day trial. The district court entered judgment on December 3, 2019, and sentenced him to twenty-five years, with ten years fixed. McDermott timely appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, which vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
The conviction is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial and further proceedings consistent with the opinion. If an initial-aggressor instruction is warranted, the district court should use an instruction that assigns the burden to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the initial aggressor, excludes mere argument or abusive language absent physical threats or acts, and requires withdrawal and communication of withdrawal before self-defense is unavailable. The court must also instruct on any additional legal issues supported by the evidence, including mutual combat.