State v. King
304 P.3d 1
Mont.2013Background
- King was convicted by jury of deliberate homicide and aggravated assault after a December 2, 2010 incident involving Terrey and Thompson.
- District Court ruled King could not present a justifiable use of force in defense of another and limited Terrey’s mental-health evidence.
- Terrey’s death resulted from a knife wound; Thompson was assaulted by King during the same incident.
- King sought to use justifiable use of force to defend Terrey from suicide and argued Terrey had mental-health history (suicide attempts, cutting) relevant to the case.
- Court held justifiable use of force in defense of another requires three parties (defendant, defender, aggressor) and excluded that defense; evidence of Terrey’s mental-health history was not properly offered or preserved for reversal.
- King appealed challenging these evidentiary rulings; Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgments
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justifiable use of force in defense of another | King argues defense should be available, not barred by inconsistency with accident theory | State contends defense of another requires three parties and is not applicable here | Exclusion upheld; defense in defense of another not available under §45-3-102 |
| Terrey’s mental-health evidence and preservation | King contends evidence should be admitted as reverse 404(b) and to present a complete defense | State argues issue not properly preserved and exclusion proper under 404(a)/404(c)/405 | Plain error review declined; no proper preservation; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Buslayev, 369 Mont. 428 (2013 MT 88) (evidentiary-admissibility; abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Daniels, 362 Mont. 426 (2011 MT 278) (jury instructions; evidence-supported theories)
- In re O.A.W., 335 Mont. 304 (2007 MT 13) (offer of proof requirements; preservation of error)