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

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.