[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6273939,"mediaKeyId","2996986-cc1b8a9d3d969caa607a28a677704a2a","parentId",2996986,"title","Defense says judge’s private response to juror questions may have denied Smith opportunity to make a record","audioSeconds",1746,"startMs",1109101,"endMs",2855211,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2996986-cc1b8a9d3d969caa607a28a677704a2a&start=1109&end=2855","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2996986-cc1b8a9d3d969caa607a28a677704a2a/thumbnail_1109101.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6273939/Missoula/Missoula-County/Montana/Defense-says-judges-private-response-to-juror-questions-may-have-denied-Smith-opportunity-to-make-a-record","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6273939-04cb78c37870455f9d3ce1098e9e0374/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201162&Signature=nHBX-0opubs9T-aIsHNfJEifsS5tB5f5WkQTldkGDvZc6YXENcPxkbc7Efkrl015YU07V7Xrp6U2Ns04mmoRONs9jh6llo5Z~JSbiL1CGZtvEiwe1YPloTjkS-D1z3c6bd0MdDKQTtk7~EI7Wl7HyHy34toHr7q8DkeshMlFugIAbGMPw5IYTWBdJ2f~Pvfzgp1MRn8xZaONGWQLnMoj85tFUzvZG9SMicSnd4Jkr1ZdGlCPkGJMgY3w4MapCpvTIHU04teiqpAW05IsSQNUPJvv6M7W66hYNxBrV5J9iqOoiDHk9x1FUxt8DlORdOLwd19w4z7xwNf~mQd5A-qThA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Missoula, MT","date","2025-04-15T17:38:24Z","article","At oral argument in State of Montana v. Andrew John Smith, appellate counsel urged the Montana Supreme Court to find reversible error in the district court’s handling of two juror questions during trial, arguing the court answered without first consulting the parties or placing the judge’s response on the record.

The dispute centers on two notes the jurors sent the judge during trial. Colin Stevens, representing Smith, told the justices the judge told the bailiff to tell jurors “he could not answer their questions” but did not place the judge’s response on the record or consult counsel beforehand. Stevens argued that, given the small‑town setting and the limited record, the absence of a contemporaneous on‑the‑record response leaves uncertainty and may require plain‑error review.

Roy Brown, for the State, told the court the judge acted to protect the trial record and that the questions were handled appropriately. Brown said the first juror question was about the gun and the following testimony addressed that subject; the judge’s handling prevented overemphasis of any one piece of evidence, Brown argued. The state urged that the defense failed to preserve the issue at trial and that a plain‑error standard would be inappropriate.

Justices probed both sides on whether jurors were deliberating when they submitted the notes and on the proper standard for appellate review. Justice Laurie MacKinnon and others asked if counsel had an obligation at trial to create a record, noting the trial was still in progress when at least one question was posed. Stevens acknowledged trial counsel did not make a contemporaneous record but argued that the unique facts — including the possibility the bailiff relayed the judge’s response outside the courtroom to jurors — create uncertainty about prejudice that can only be remedied on direct appeal.

The court took the issue under advisement; it did not issue a ruling at argument.

Clarifying points in the record: the juror notes occurred during trial (the transcript records two juror notes and the judge’s direction to the bailiff), and counsel debated whether the notes were asked before or after the jury had been instructed not to discuss the case and whether that timing affects the plain‑error analysis.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Montana Supreme Court Oral Argument April 4, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","During oral argument in State v. Andrew John Smith, counsel disputed the district court’s handling of two juror questions—specifically that the judge instructed the bailiff to tell jurors he could not answer without first consulting counsel, then told counsel after the fact—raising plain‑error and right‑to‑presence issues on appeal.","taxTitle","Missoula, Missoula County, Montana","taxId",4050,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6273944,"Montana Supreme Court weighs whether defendant can seek mitigated deliberate homicide while claiming self‑defense",5038,424921,5463751,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2996986-cc1b8a9d3d969caa607a28a677704a2a&start=424&end=5463","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2996986-cc1b8a9d3d969caa607a28a677704a2a/thumbnail_424921.jpg","/articles/6273944/Missoula/Missoula-County/Montana/Montana-Supreme-Court-weighs-whether-defendant-can-seek-mitigated-deliberate-homicide-while-claiming-selfdefense","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6273944-9268b274c5f9c02be692e5d043c6e75a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201162&Signature=G3uWmAAP2C9EjNMKG92w6lrFp09VUGPC01fHiOgBKajv37r6uS2ndYl5vDOFRdg~sjwN01kT7jSU3LP3TdqjUjgq-zJRPtjXzovK0K6dPIOHiLVjS0kFHTL~TURsKYOLyBV46vso0QhMfRNBuHtGZcNc0i9waGqqJoIXxfJDltSo2b3QNCGe9wmhBJmUxaUHyA9zbuoVPzPNSlltDA39nLXNFcTWDaDDbJUJGfimnTLxXQRmW1n4FzEoTB6dRTiYqyTfsaMpFJbwsLMlx-9v5T8Szg7LopTlX-FvDKEljDdqwpQh20DsFhoL3F~rh5XWiuFywMhPnsfwflBXNk8JBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Montana Supreme Court heard oral argument in State of Montana v. Andrew John Smith on legal questions over whether evidence of the defendant’s prior delusions and psychiatric evaluation could be used to support a jury instruction on mitigated deliberate homicide while Smith also asserted justifiable use of force.

The case matters because it asks whether a defendant charged with deliberate homicide must forfeit a lesser‑included instruction (mitigated deliberate homicide) if the defendant also advances an affirmative acquittal defense of justifiable use of force, and whether a pretrial motion in limine excluding mental disease or defect (MDD) evidence was correct.

At argument, Colin Stevens, attorney for the appellant Andrew Smith, told the court that the district court’s motion‑in‑limine ruling “precluded Mr. Smith’s ability to then present evidence that would ultimately support the lesser included instruction.” Stevens argued historical Montana authority and commentators support permitting alternative theories to go to a jury even when one theory could produce acquittal. Stevens framed the central error as the district court’s reading of prior cases such as German and Martinez to bar alternative theories.

Roy Brown, assistant attorney general for the State of Montana, answered that the district court’s limine order properly drew a line between MDD evidence (which can negate purpose or knowledge) and mitigation showing extreme mental or emotional stress. Brown told the court the evaluation Smith sought to introduce “goes towards purposely and knowingly” and said the record showed the defense ultimately abandoned experts after the evaluation was produced.

Justices questioned how mitigated deliberate homicide differs from other lesser‑included offenses and whether mitigation may properly rely on a defendant’s internal, psychiatric condition. Justice Jeremiah Shea noted the difficulty of overlaying a delusion on top of the objective reasonable‑person standard for mitigation: “It seems to me by that very nature … you are not… acting from the viewpoint of a reasonable person.” Stevens and other justices debated whether the issue should be resolved at a post‑trial remand so a district court could determine admissibility and evidentiary proffers.

Counsel and the justices also discussed record details: Smith testified at trial that he was shot before he stabbed Larry Patterson; prosecutors noted forensic evidence showing Patterson had been stabbed eight times and that investigators found blood consistent with Patterson bleeding before reaching for a gun. The state argued the trial record lacked expert testimony or a proffer supporting mitigation after the court’s limine order, and urged affirmance.

The court took the arguments under advisement; no final decision was announced.

Details from the record included the incident date, July 15, 2021, and that forensics showed Patterson was stabbed eight times while Smith sustained a grazing gunshot wound. The district court’s motion in limine at issue appears in the record as a March 28, 2022 order excluding portions of a psychiatric evaluation for purposes of proving MDD as to purpose/knowledge.","At oral argument in State v. Andrew John Smith, counsel debated whether a district court properly excluded psychiatric evaluation evidence and therefore prevented a jury from considering a mitigated deliberate homicide instruction alongside a justifiable‑use‑of‑force defense.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Defense says judge’s private response to juror questions may have denied Smith opportunity to make a record

Montana Supreme Court weighs whether defendant can seek mitigated deliberate homicide while claiming self‑defense