State v. John

460 P.3d 1122

The STATE of Wyoming, Petitioner,

v.Jason Tsosie JOHN, Respondent.

S-19-0046

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 6, 2020

Representing Petitioner: Bridget L. Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Samuel L. Williams, Assistant Attorney General; Kevin D. Taheri, Special Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Williams.

Representing Respondent: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, Wyoming Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; Desiree Wilson, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Wilson.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] In August 2018, the State charged Jason Tsosie John with one count of first degree murder. The district court dismissed the case under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-602(f), which the legislature had only recently added to the self-defense statutes. 2018 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 135 (amending Wyoming Statute §§ 6-1-204 and 6-2-602 ). Subsection (f) states "[a] person who uses reasonable defensive force as defined by subsection (a) of this section shall not be criminally prosecuted for that use of reasonable defensive force." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-602(f) (LexisNexis 2019). We granted the State’s petition for writ of review to address several matters of first impression regarding the statute’s meaning and application. We conclude § 6-2-602(f) is a mandatory immunity provision carrying with it a judicial gatekeeping function following the preliminary hearing. The accused must present a prima facie showing that § 6-2-602(f) applies. If the accused satisfies this minimal burden, the burden shifts to the State to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that § 6-2-602(f) does not apply. Though the district court applied a different burden and standard when adjudicating Mr. John’s motion to dismiss, its error was harmless, and we affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] We restate the issues as follows:

I. Did the district court err when it concluded Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-602(f) is a "true immunity" provision carrying with it a gatekeeping function for courts?

II. Did the district court err when it considered Mr. John’s pretrial motion to dismiss after an evidentiary hearing?

III. Did the district court erroneously grant Mr. John’s motion to dismiss?

BACKGROUND

A. Statutory Amendments

[¶3] The legislature substantially amended Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-602 during the 2018 Budget Session.¹ 2018 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 135. Those amendments took effect approximately one month before the State charged Mr. John with first degree murder. Id.

[¶4] As amended, the statute provides in relevant part:²

§ 6-2-602. Use of force in self defense; no duty to retreat.

(a) The use of defensive force whether actual or threatened, is reasonable when it is the defensive force that a reasonable person in like circumstances would judge necessary to prevent an injury or loss, and no more, including deadly force if necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the person employing the deadly force or to another person. As used in this subsection, "necessary to prevent" includes a necessity that arises from an honest belief that the danger exists whether the danger is real or apparent.

(a)(b) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to himself or another when using defensive force, that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to anotherincluding deadly force if:

(i) The intruder against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, another's home or habitation or, if that intruder had removed or was attempting to remove another against his will from his home or habitation; and

(ii) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring.

....

(c)(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another's home or habitation is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(e) A person who is attacked in any place where the person is lawfully present shall not have a duty to retreat before using reasonable defensive force pursuant to subsection (a) of this section provided that he is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in illegal activity.

(f) A person who uses reasonable defensive force as defined by subsection (a) of this section shall not be criminally prosecuted for that use of reasonable defensive force.(d)(g) As used in this section:

....

(iii) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Id .

B. The Shooting and Court Proceedings

[¶5] The amended statute’s meaning and application are hotly contested in this case, the facts of which do not establish the defense of one’s home against an unknown intruder. Mr. John, the accused, knew Wesley Willow, the deceased. Each had a relationship with Melissa Hayden. Ms. Hayden and Mr. John dated from June to July 2018. Prior to that, Ms. Hayden dated Mr. Willow. She resumed dating Mr. Willow after she and Mr. John broke up. Ms. Hayden and Mr. Willow had two children.

[¶6] On Friday, August 3, 2018, the night of the shooting, Ms. Hayden, Mr. Willow, and Nicholas Heims were celebrating Ms. Hayden’s birthday at a hotel in Casper, Wyoming. Ms. Hayden had an active protection order against Mr. Willow and, as a condition of her felony probation, should not have been with him. Ms. Hayden and Mr. Willow did not know Mr. Heims until they met him that night at the hotel.

[¶7] A series of text messages between Mr. John and Ms. Hayden precipitated the confrontation that resulted in Mr. Willow’s death. Mr. John sent Ms. Hayden text messages at 3:42 and 3:44 a.m. expressing his disgust about her relationship with Mr. Willow. Ms. Hayden responded at 3:46 a.m. The messages escalated over the next few minutes and Ms. Hayden ultimately told Mr. John, "Stop texting me. ..... Done." Mr. John did not stop. His next text said "Fucking Crackhead... can’t even be a real mom. That’s the truth!" Then, at 3:53 a.m. Ms. Hayden, or someone using her phone, texted back "I’m fuck you up Bitch!" Mr. John, apparently presuming Ms. Hayden sent the message, responded: "Go head..."; "I’ll blow you away just like Wesley [Willow] and Will. To protect J[ ] and J[ ] and N[ ]! Fuck yeah! Test me bitch!"; "Come at me!"; "My kids are my life!"; "I don’t fuck around!!!" When Ms. Hayden showed Mr. Willow the text messages, "all hell broke loose."

[¶8] A one-minute phone call between Mr. Willow and Mr. John occurred shortly after, at 3:56 a.m. The exact words spoken during the phone call are unclear, but Mr. Heims heard Mr. Willow ask "where you at" and then repeat the number "75," which was the trailer spot where Mr. John lived. When the call ended, Mr. Heims and Ms. Hayden understood that Mr. Willow intended to go to Mr. John’s home to fight him.

[¶9] The three drove to the area where Mr. John lived. They parked several spots past Mr. John’s trailer to avoid being seen. Ms. Hayden and Mr. Willow were intoxicated. Ms. Hayden brought an empty vodka bottle to hit Mr. John over the head. Mr. Willow was unarmed. Mr. Heims had a closed knife.

[¶10] As they walked toward Mr. John’s home they saw him standing on the porch or in the front doorway holding an "AR-15 style rifle" with a mounted flashlight. Mr. John’s mother and young son were sleeping inside. Mr. John and Mr. Willow shouted back and forth. Though Mr. John warned the group to "get back" or "get out of here," Mr. Willow did not heed the warning. As Mr. Willow sprinted into Mr. John’s home, Mr. John fired nine shots in rapid succession. Several struck Mr. Willow.

[¶11] Awoken by the commotion, Mr. John’s mother came out to the living room, took the rifle from Mr. John, and called 911 at 4:12 a.m. First responders could not revive Mr. Willow and pronounced him dead at the scene.

[¶12] Three days later, on August 6, the State charged Mr. John with first degree murder, alleging he "purposely and with premeditated malice" killed Mr. Willow, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-101(a).

[¶13] At the preliminary hearing less than two weeks later, the State informed the circuit court the evidence would show Mr. John sent disparaging text messages to Ms. Hayden about her and Mr. Willow’s children, agreed to fight Mr. Willow, provided Mr. Willow his address, and then "ambush[ed]" him with a firearm and killed him. Though Mr. John asked the court to decide whether the shooting was lawful and directed the court’s attention to the newly amended statute, the court declined to decide whether § 6-2-602(f) applied because it had unanswered questions about the facts and there was no precedent applying the statute. The circuit court bound the case over to district court.

[¶14] Mr. John pleaded not guilty at arraignment and the district court scheduled trial for mid-February. At the end of December, Mr. John filed his "Motion for Dismissal Pursuant to Wyoming Statute § 6-2-602 or in the Alternative Enforcement of Wyoming Statute § 6-2-602(f)." He argued the State had to prove § 6-2-602(f) did not apply. According to Mr. John, the State could not meet its burden because he was "presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to himself or another" under subsection (b), Mr. Willow was presumed to be entering his home "with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence" under subsection (d), and he had no duty to retreat under subsection (e).

[¶15] The State responded that § 6-2-602(f) did not entitle Mr. John to a separate pretrial immunity hearing in the district court. Alternatively, it asserted Mr. John was not entitled to statutory immunity because Mr. Willow’s entry into his home was not "...