Summary
The Montana Supreme Court considers whether Andrew John Smith could seek a lesser-included instruction for mitigated deliberate homicide while asserting justifiable use of force and whether the court should review unpreserved objections concerning juror questions under plain-error principles. The court holds that the district court erred in categorically precluding the lesser-included offense based on Smith’s defense theories, explaining that alternative and inconsistent theories may be presented when supported by evidence. The opinion also addresses the handling of juror questions and ultimately affirms Smith’s conviction and sentence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court erred by categorically precluding Smith from seeking mitigated deliberate homicide as a lesser-included offense while also asserting justifiable use of force.
- Whether the Montana Supreme Court should exercise plain-error review concerning the District Court's response to two midtrial evidentiary questions from individual jurors without consulting the parties before responding.
Holdings
- A justifiable-use-of-force defense does not categorically preclude a mitigated deliberate homicide instruction. Because mitigated deliberate homicide has the same purposeful-or-knowing homicide elements as deliberate homicide and adds the element of extreme mental or emotional stress supported by a reasonable explanation or excuse, the two theories are not legally or logically inconsistent. The instruction must be given if trial evidence supports it.
- The District Court's error was not prejudicial and did not require reversal because Smith identified no admissible evidence, or evidence he had not voluntarily withdrawn, that would have supported a mitigated deliberate homicide instruction. Smith also failed to make an offer of proof, resulting in waiver of the evidentiary issue.
- The court declined to exercise plain-error review because Smith did not show that failure to review the unpreserved issue would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, undermine the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
Key quotations
“A lesser-included offense instruction is not supported by the evidence when the evidence, if believed, would require an acquittal on both the greater and lesser offense—that is, the defense’s entire theory is that the defendant did not commit the crime.” (¶ 25)
“Therefore, the State is incorrect. A JUOF defense does not preclude mitigated deliberate homicide as a lesser included offense, so long as there is evidence presented at trial to support it.” (¶ 36)
“The District Court erred in its pretrial ruling that Smith could not alternatively argue justifiable use of force and mitigated deliberate homicide as a lesser-included offense.” (¶ 63)
Factual background
Smith encountered his 79-year-old neighbor, Larry Patterson, outside an apartment in Winnett. Patterson was found bleeding from multiple stab wounds, with a firearm nearby; Smith had a knife and told witnesses that Patterson had shot him first. Patterson died, and Smith testified that Patterson pulled a pistol and shot him before Smith stabbed him until the gun left Patterson's hands. Physical evidence contradicted portions of Smith's account, including the location of blood and the level of the neck wound.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Smith of deliberate homicide with a dangerous-weapon sentencing enhancement. The District Court sentenced him to a total of 110 years in Montana State Prison and precluded him from using mental-disease-or-disorder evidence to support a mitigated deliberate homicide instruction while asserting justifiable use of force. During trial, the court declined to answer two jurors' evidentiary questions after informing the parties, and Smith did not object. The Montana Supreme Court held that the pretrial ruling was legally erroneous but nonprejudicial and declined plain-error review of the juror-question issue, affirming.