State v. Daniels
2011 MT 278
Mont.2011Background
- Daniels, age 66, and his relatives Buddy, Logan, and Hagen live on a 10-acre rental property in Fromberg, Montana, with two structures—the north apartment/shop and the main house—sharing access as a family estate.
- On May 21, 2009, Daniels and Buddy were intoxicated after driving home from Billings; a dinner-time argument over Logan’s birthday escalated, ending with Buddy forcing Daniels to leave the main house and Daniels retreating toward his adjacent residence.
- Daniels testified he retrieved a .22 pistol and, after Buddy confronted him upstairs, fired three shots from about ten feet away while trying to disengage and protect himself.
- After the shooting, Logan and Hagen entered; Daniels called 911 and admitted shooting Buddy; six hours later Daniels’s blood alcohol was 0.08.
- Buddy suffered two gunshot wounds (head and back) and died; Daniels was charged with deliberate homicide, later amended to an alternative charge of mitigated deliberate homicide, and raised the defense of justifiable use of force (JUOF).
- Daniels was convicted after a six-day trial; the court sentenced him to 60 years with 20 years before parole; the Montana Supreme Court addressed HUOF burden shifting under HB 228 and evidentiary foundations for victim-character evidence, and reviewed jury instructions on occupied-structure defense and burglary for forcible felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in admissibility of Buddy’s character evidence | State contends evidence needed proper foundation under Montgomery and related rules | Daniels argues HB 228 alters burden and allows broader admission of victim’s character | No reversible error; proper foundation required; district court’s rulings upheld |
| Whether cross-examination on Buddy’s reputation and acts required proper foundation | State maintains foundation rules limit cross-examination until proper foundation laid | Daniels seeks broader cross-examination under Rule 405 | District court did not abuse discretion; foundation requirements satisfied or properly deferred |
| Whether the JUOF jury instruction for defense of an occupied structure and burglary as a forcible felony was correctly refused | State argues no unlawful entry proven; burglary not applicable | Daniels sought JUOF instruction and burglary as forcible felony | Yes; unlawful entry not shown; burglary not applicable; instruction refused |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hagen, 273 Mont. 432, 903 P.2d 1381 (1995) (unlawful-entry prerequisite to JUOF defense; evidence must support foundation)
- State v. Logan, 156 Mont. 48, 473 P.2d 833 (1970) (victim character evidence requires issues joined to admit reputation or specific acts)
- State v. Cartwright, 200 Mont. 91, 650 P.2d 758 (1982) (self-defense foundation; limits on admissibility before joining issues)
- Mont. v. Montgomery, Mont. �� (1990s) (foundation for victim's past violence; relevance to force used)
- State v. Deschon, 2008 MT 380, 347 Mont. 30, 197 P.3d 476 (2008) (foundation and relevance in JUOF context)
- State v. Henson, 2010 MT 136, 356 Mont. 458, 235 P.3d 1274 (2010) (burden-shifting for JUOF under HB 228; continued application of rules of evidence)