STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANDREW JOHN SMITH, Defendant and Appellant

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANDREW JOHN SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for Friday, April 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in the Dennison Theatre, on the campus of the University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, with an introduction to the argument beginning at 9:30 a.m. Andrew John Smith and Larry Patterson got into an altercation that resulted in Smith suffering a gunshot wound and Patterson suffering eight stab wounds. Patterson died from his injuries. The State charged Smith with deliberate homicide. Smith disclosed that he intended to argue justifiable use of force and that he had undergone a psychological evaluation. Smith was later found fit to proceed. Prior to trial, the District Court concluded that the defenses of justifiable use of force and mental disease or defect are mutually exclusive. The court declined to offer a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide because either defense would result in acquittal for deliberate homicide if the jury believed the defense. During trial, the court informed the parties it had received a question from the jury during the State’s case-in-chief. However, the court determined it was an evidentiary question and it directed the bailiff to inform the jury that the court could not answer the question. The court declined to reveal the question to the parties because it did not want to influence counsels’ questioning of witnesses. Prior to closing arguments, the court informed the parties that it had received another question. Again, the court determined it was an evidentiary question and directed the bailiff to inform the jury the court could not answer the question. Neither counsel objected. On appeal, Smith argues the District Court erred in denying him a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide. He further argues this Court should invoke plain error review to determine if his right to fundamentally fair proceedings was violated when the District Court responded to the jury questions without input of counsel.