STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DANIELLE WOOD, Defendant and Appellant

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DANIELLE WOOD, Defendant and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for Monday, April 22, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. in the Strand Union Building, Ballroom A, on the campus of Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, with an introduction to the oral argument beginning at 10:00 a.m. Live-stream: https://www.youtube.com/live/va6BSjJjDzA?si=9bGCGyRPyr3fZFK2 In March 2019, Danielle Wood was charged with deliberate homicide and accountability for deliberate homicide for the death of Matthew LaFriniere, who was found dead from gunshot wounds near his home’s driveway in May 2018. LaFriniere had custody of his and Wood’s child, but he allowed Wood to spend time with the child. On the evening of LaFriniere’s death, the child was at Wood’s home while Wood hosted a gathering. Wood received a text from an unknown number that purported to be from LaFriniere and asked her to delay returning the child. Wood then drove to LaFriniere’s home, returning to her home 30 to 40 minutes later and advising her guests that LaFriniere was not home. Wood texted LaFriniere’s cellphone and the unknown number, stating that she would await LaFriniere’s call before returning the child. The following morning, a coworker discovered LaFriniere’s body. At trial, the State relied on expert testimony regarding the location of Wood’s cellphone and the “TracFone” associated with the unknown number to argue that Wood used the TracFone to provide herself with an alibi and to place a 911 call on the evening of LaFriniere’s death to divert law enforcement to a distant location. The District Court admitted this evidence over Wood’s objection that the expert was unqualified and his opinions were based on unreliable evidence. Wood also argued the State should not be allowed to argue accountability. She alleged the State had presented insufficient evidence of this charge because it never named her alleged accomplice and only argued she had personally killed LaFriniere. The District Court instructed the jury on the theory of accountability. The jury convicted Wood of LaFriniere’s homicide. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court requested oral argument limited to the issues of whether the District Court properly instructed the jury on accountability and whether it properly admitted evidence of cell-site location information.