State v. Kaarma
2017 MT 24
Mont.2017Background
- In April 2014 Markus Kaarma shot into his attached garage after seeing an intruder on a security camera; the intruder, Diren Dede, was shot in the arm and head and later died. Kaarma admitted firing four shotgun rounds into the garage.
- Kaarma was charged with deliberate homicide; at trial he asserted affirmative defenses of justifiable use of force in defense of an occupied structure and of a person (self-defense). The jury convicted him; he was sentenced to 70 years and appealed.
- Pretrial publicity in Missoula County was extensive (numerous local articles, prosecutor comments quoted, community sympathy for the victim), and Kaarma moved multiple times to change venue; the district court denied those motions but used questionnaires, voir dire, sealing of certain proceedings, and other measures to protect impartiality.
- A prospective juror (Hughes) was the spouse of a former police chief; the court declined to excuse her for cause after voir dire; Kaarma used a peremptory challenge against her and exhausted his peremptory strikes.
- Evidentiary disputes: (1) the State was allowed to elicit prior-assault testimony about Kaarma after the defense elicited favorable-character testimony from Pflager; (2) Detective Baker (a detective with training) testified about blood-spatter patterns without being designated an expert; the court later found that admitting that testimony as lay opinion was error but harmless because the same conclusions were supported by qualified expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kaarma) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Jury instructions on justifiable force (defense of person vs. occupied structure) | Court should instruct on any defense supported by evidence; State required to disprove any justified-use evidence beyond a reasonable doubt | Kaarma argued only defense of occupied structure was properly raised and the court should not have instructed on defense of person (self-defense); also objected to omission/inclusion of certain statutory characterizations | Court affirmed: both instructions were supported by evidence, so giving both was proper and not abuse of discretion |
| 2. Change of venue based on pretrial publicity (presumed prejudice) | Pretrial publicity was factual and manageable; voir dire and questionnaires suffice to find impartial jurors | Kaarma urged presumed prejudice given volume and tone of publicity and small-community character | Court affirmed denial of change of venue: publicity not so inflammatory as Rideau/Coburn-level spectacles; voir dire + questionnaires adequate; no presumed prejudice |
| 3. Challenge for cause of juror married to former police chief | Juror could be impartial based on voir dire; mere connection to law enforcement not disqualifying without actual bias | Kaarma argued the court’s standing pretrial order excusing law-enforcement relations required excusal and voir dire showed bias | Court affirmed denial: voir dire showed juror could be fair; mere past ties to law enforcement insufficient to remove for cause |
| 4. Admission of prior assault evidence on Pflager after defense elicited good-character testimony | Once defendant "opened the door" by eliciting testimony of defendant as protector, State may rebut with bad-character evidence | Kaarma asserted remoteness and 403 prejudice; prior assault should have been excluded | Court affirmed: Defense opened the door; limited impeachment with prior assault was permissible rebuttal |
| 5. Admitting lay opinion testimony on blood-spatter by Detective Baker without expert designation | State argued Baker’s perceptions and experience allowed lay-opinion testimony under Rule 701; cross-examination allowed | Kaarma argued Baker offered technical expert opinions (blood-spatter analysis) and should have been disclosed as an expert so defense could obtain rebuttal | Court held: admitting Baker’s blood-spatter explanations as lay opinion was erroneous (should have been treated as expert testimony), but error was harmless because equivalent expert evidence (State crime-lab analyst and defense expert report) supported the same conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) (televised confession created a "spectacle" and warranted presumed prejudice/change of venue)
- State v. Coburn, 655 P.2d 502 (Mont. 1982) (sensational inflammatory publicity and official statements created inherent prejudice requiring venue change)
- State v. Kingman, 264 P.3d 1104 (Mont. 2011) (standard for presumed prejudice from publicity; extremely high bar)
- State v. Erickson, 338 P.3d 598 (Mont. 2014) (defendant’s burden to produce justifiable-use evidence and trial-court duty to instruct on theories supported by evidence)
- State v. Van Kirk, 32 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2001) (two-step harmless-error framework for trial errors vs. structural errors)
- State v. Devlin, 201 P.3d 791 (Mont. 2009) (analysis of pretrial publicity, voir dire, and district court’s role in evaluating change-of-venue motions)