State v. Case

417 Mont. 354

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.WILLIAM TREVOR CASE, Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA 23-0136.

Submitted on Briefs February 14, 2024.

Decided August 6, 2024.

2024 MT 165.

417 Mont. 354.

____P.3d___.

Appeal from the District Court of Anaconda-Deer Lodge County.

Third Judicial District Court, Cause No. DC-21-100.

Honorable Kurt Krueger, Judge.

Community caretaker doctrine allowed officers to properly sweep defendant’s home with firearms drawn because, before the welfare check morphed into an arrest, defendant had assaulted an officer by pointing a gun at him, and probable cause had accordingly ripened for an arrest; defendant did not meet his burden to show that a Brady violation occurred because the outcome of the proceedings would not have been different if the State had disclosed evidence about the timing of the involved officer’s prior incident.

Affirmed.

JUSTICE McKINNON dissented, joined by JUSTICE GUSTAFSON and SANDEFUR.

For Appellant: Nathan D. Ellis, Ellis Law, PLLC, Helena; Christopher R. Betchie, Hyll, Swingley, & Betchie, P.C., Helena.

For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Michael P. Dougherty, Assistant Attorney General, Helena; Ben Krakowka, Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Attorney, Anaconda.

CHIEF JUSTICE McGRATH delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Trevor Case appeals a February 24, 2023 judgment from the Third Judicial District Court, Deer Lodge County, following a December 8, 2022 jury verdict of Assault on a Peace Officer, a felony, in violation of § 45-5-210, MCA.

¶2 We restate the issues on appeal as follows:

Issue One: Did the District Court err in denying Case’s motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless entry into his home?

Issue Two: Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Case a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 Law enforcement responded to Case’s home on September 27, 2021, after receiving a report from his ex-girlfriend, J.H., that Case had threatened suicide during a phone call with her that evening.

¶4 J.H. had assumed Case was drinking during the phone call because he was acting "erratic." She became concerned when Case stated that "he was going to get a note or something like that" and planned to commit suicide. After attempting and failing to deescalate the conversation, J.H. heard a "clicking" that sounded like a cocking pistol. J.H. told Case she was going to call the police, and Case threatened harm to any officers that came to his home if she did. J.H. continued pleading with Case until she heard a "pop" and "thought he pulled the trigger, because it was just dead air." The phone call did not disconnect, but Case was unresponsive. After reporting the call to the police, J.H. immediately drove to Case’s home.

¶5 Three officers, Captain Dave Heffernan, Sergeant Richard Pasha, and Officer Blake Linsted, initially responded to Case’s home. J.H. arrived at the scene shortly thereafter and described Case’s threats to the officers. When she was asked whether she was "concerned about [Case] and possibly what he’d done to himself," she replied "Absolutely."

¶6 Heffernan called Chief Bill Sather for assistance because of the threats of harm to officers and the otherwise delicate nature of the situation. The officers did not consider obtaining a warrant to enter Case’s home because "it wasn’t a criminal thing. [They] were going in to assist him." Sather arrived at the scene approximately 30 minutes after the other officers.

¶7 Case did not respond to the initial door knock, nor did he respond when officers knocked on and yelled through an open window where a light was on. Meanwhile, Pasha and Linsted peered through each of Case’s windows to look for evidence of an injury, indications that Case needed help, or signs of danger. All the officers could see through the windows were empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad on a table.

¶8 The officers were hesitant to enter Case’s home because of J.H.’s report that Case had threatened them harm. Additionally, they were familiar with Case’s history of alcohol abuse and mental health issues. The officers were aware, for example, that Case had previously threatened suicide at the local school where he taught, and the school was locked down because he had a weapon. Case’s coworkers eventually confiscated his vehicle and the weapon so Case could not hurt himself. Another time, officers responded to Georgetown Lake where Case was reportedly under the influence and acting erratically in his parked truck. When officers arrived, Case generally acted obstinately and refused to exit his vehicle. After eventually stepping out, Case quickly reached back into the truck against the officers’ warnings. The officers perceived Case’s behavior as an attempt to elicit a defensive response, i.e., a "suicide-by-cop."

¶9 Before entering Case’s home, Heffernan thus returned to the station to retrieve a ballistic shield for protection. Pasha and Linsted retrieved qualified personal long barrel guns from their patrol car because they have customized fits, they are equipped with lights and optics, and the officers are generally more comfortable using them in dangerous situations.

¶10 Sather made the decision to enter Case’s home roughly forty minutes after the officers first arrived.

¶11 The officers opened the unlocked front door, announced themselves, and continued to loudly identify themselves as they moved through Case’s home. Heffernan left the ballistic shield on a sofa immediately after entering the home, due to its bulk. The officers were reportedly "yelling the whole time" they were in the home to continue announcing themselves. While the officers were clearing the first floor, they again saw the holster and notepad they had seen from outside, upon which was written what "looked like a suicidal note." Heffernan and Sather then moved to the basement, where Case kept his bedroom, while Pasha and Linsted moved upstairs.

¶12 As Pasha moved through an upstairs bedroom, Case "jerked open" a closet curtain. Pasha observed a "dark object" near Case’s waist, and instantaneously aimed at and shot Case in the abdomen. Case fell to the floor, and Linsted entered the room and immediately began administering first aid. As Heffernan and Sather came into the room moments later, Heffernan noticed and secured a handgun that was lying in a laundry hamper just outside the closet, next to Case.

¶13 As Linsted helped Case to the ambulance outside, Sather secured both Pasha and Case’s firearms and immediately called the State Department of Criminal Investigation (DCI) for instructions on next steps.

¶14 Pasha testified at both the suppression hearing and at trial that he was nervous the entire time he was in Case’s home. He testified that when he saw the curtain flash open, he saw Case with an "aggressive like look on his face" and "gritted" teeth. Pasha saw what appeared to be a black object coming out of the curtain, and further testified that he believed the object was a gun and that he was about to be shot.

¶15 On October 1, 2021, Case was charged by Information with Assault on a Peace Officer. The Information was amended on December 15, 2021, to further provide that Case "knowingly or purposefully caused reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury in Sgt. Richard Pasha when he pointed a pistol at Sgt. Richard Pasha." ¶16 Case filed three pretrial motions on December 17, 2021: a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, a motion in limine to suppress evidence of prior bad acts, and a motion to suppress all evidence obtained by law enforcement in its "illegal search and seizure of Defendant and his residence."

¶17 On January 5, 2022, the State filed a second amended information, clarifying the charge that Case "knowingly or purposefully caused reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury in Sgt. Richard Pasha when he pointed a pistol, or what reasonably appeared to be a pistol, at Sgt. Richard Pasha." (Emphasis added.)

¶18 Following a February 14, 2022 hearing, Case’s request to exclude any evidence related to an altercation at the 7 Gables Bar (Georgetown) was granted. Otherwise, his motions to dismiss and suppress were denied.

¶19 During trial, Pasha testified that he had previously been shot at when responding to a crime scene. He further testified that it contributed to his hesitance to enter Case’s home. Case did not ask Pasha about this incident on cross-examination.

¶20 The jury returned a guilty verdict on December 8, 2022.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶21 [1] Our review of constitutional questions is plenary. State v. Ilk, 2018 MT 186, ¶ 15, 392 Mont. 201, 422 P.3d 1219 (citation omitted). We review the factual findings underlying a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error, and we review the application of those facts to relevant laws for correctness. State v. Wakeford, 1998 MT 16, ¶ 18, 287 Mont. 220, 953 P.2d 1065 (citation omitted). Whether a motion for a new trial was properly denied is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Ilk, ¶ 15 (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

¶22 On appeal, Case argues the District Court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after the officers entered his home without a warrant. Case further contends the District Court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial when the State did not disclose that Pasha was shot at during an investigation three months prior to entering Case’s home.

¶23 Issue One: Did the District Court err in denying Case’s motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless entry into his home?

¶24 [2] In Montana, a peace officer’s warrantless entry into an individual’s home is per se unreasonable because citizens are afforded an expectation of privacy and protection from unlawful searches and seizures in their homes. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Mont. Const. art. II, §§ 10, 11; State v. Stone, 2004 MT 151, ¶ 18, 321 Mont....