State v. Myran
2012 MT 252
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Jay Myran was convicted of deliberate homicide in Gallatin County following a shooting incident with Gayle Brewster in May 2009.
- The defense argued negligent homicide based on intoxication and claimed intoxication evidence was relevant to his state of mind.
- During instruction settling, the State proposed intoxication instruction under § 45-2-203, MCA; defense objected citing burden shifting and potential due process concerns.
- The District Court instructed the jury with Instruction 19 mirroring § 45-2-203, MCA, and Jay was convicted of deliberate homicide.
- On appeal, Jay challenged the instruction as violating due process and restricting his defense; the State argued no due process violation and that the defense was fully presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the District Court err by instructing on intoxication under § 45-2-203, MCA? | Jay: instruction burden shifts and violates Montana Constitution due process. | State: instruction correctly informs that intoxication not a defense; no due process problem. | No, instruction did not violate due process; proper read of law as a whole. |
| Does § 45-2-203, MCA, violate due process under the Montana Constitution? | Jay: Montana Constitution provides enhanced defense rights; statute burdens state unfairly. | State: statute consistent with federal due process; no broader state-right needed. | No; Montana Constitution provides no greater right than federal due process in this context. |
| Was Jay’s objection properly preserved and properly before the court on appeal? | Jay: objection based on burden shifting and due process; timely during settling of instructions. | State: objection framed in record and preserved; claimed impermissible burden shifting and due process. | Yes; objection preserved and properly before the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCaslin, 322 Mont. 350, 96 P.3d 722 (2004 MT 212) (intoxication instruction not a blanket burden shift; federal due process alignment)
- State v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996) (federal due process assessment of intoxication instruction)
- State v. McCaslin, 322 Mont. 350, 96 P.3d 722 (2004 MT 212) (analysis of intoxication and due process under Montana Constitution (cited for reasoning))
- State v. Smith, 329 Mont. 526, 127 P.3d 353 (2005 MT 325) (due process considerations in jury instructions)
- State v. Covington, 364 Mont. 118, 272 P.3d 43 (2012 MT 31) (approach to determining enhanced rights under Montana Constitution)