State v. Severson

416 Mont. 201

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.KYLE LEE SEVERSON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA 21-0290.

Submitted on Briefs February 14, 2024.

Decided April 9, 2024.

2024 MT 76.

416 Mont. 201.

__P.3d__.

Appeal from the District Court of Richland County.

Seventh Judicial District Court, Cause No. DC-19-55.

Honorable Olivia Rieger, Judge.

Given the string of missteps and errors, namely the prosecutor’s implicit suggestion to the jury through improper questioning that defendant and his girlfriend were drug dealers and the State’s failure to disclose burglary information, all going to the essential issue of witness credibility, the cumulative effect of the errors prejudiced defendant’s right to a fair trial; the Brady material tended to show that defendant’s claimed fear of the victim was reasonable, and thus, supported his claim that he was afraid for himself and his family when the victim approached his vehicle; the prosecutor’s misconduct went directly to the credibility of the witnesses. Her improper questioning of the girlfriend in violation of the district court’s order in limine appeared to have been a clear attempt to diminish the credibility of the girlfriend and defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Michael Marchesini, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena.

For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Christine Hutchison, Assistant Attorney General, Helena; Charity McLarty, Richland County Attorney, Sidney.

JUSTICE BAKER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Kyle Severson appeals a jury conviction for mitigated deliberate homicide after he shot Tyler Hayden on the evening of July 2, 2019. We address the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the District Court err when it denied Severson's motion to dismiss based on the State's failure to disclose favorable evidence?

2. Did the cumulative effect of errors in the District Court deny Severson a fair trial?

¶2 We conclude that the cumulative effect of errors in the proceedings denied Severson his constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 On July 2, 2019, Severson, his girlfriend Karina Orozco, her sister Jessica Orozco, and Severson’s and Karina’s three-year-old daughter drove to the Loaf ’N Jug convenience store in Sidney. Severson was sitting in the rear passenger seat of the vehicle. Karina and Jessica entered the store; Severson and his daughter stayed in the car. Six minutes later, Hayden and Dalton Watson arrived at the store and parked next to Karina’s vehicle. Both Watson and Hayden entered the store. After a few minutes, Watson returned to his vehicle. Karina and Jessica exited the store roughly forty-five seconds later. Twenty seconds after that, Hayden exited and returned to the passenger side of Watson’s vehicle. After briefly confirming with Watson that Severson was in the back seat of Karina’s car, Hayden turned and approached Severson’s open window. Karina, who was driving the vehicle, stopped the car as Hayden approached. Karina testified at trial that as he approached, Hayden said something "[l]ike aggressive, taunting." Watson testified that "[Hayden] said ‘hey buddy, it’s been a long time. How you been doin’ in a friendly way." As Hayden approached, Severson raised a .38 caliber handgun, shot Hayden at close range, and killed him.

¶4 Immediately after the shooting, Watson exited his vehicle to assist Hayden, who had fallen to the ground. Security camera footage of the shooting shows Watson running to assist Hayden, tripping on the curb, retrieving an object from the ground near Hayden, running back to his vehicle, and then returning to help Hayden. It was later determined that the object Watson picked up was a .22-caliber handgun. Watson claimed that he, not Hayden, had been the one carrying the handgun and that it had flown out of his pants when he tripped on the curb. As Watson assisted Hayden, Karina quickly drove away. Severson immediately told Karina to drive him to the police station. Once there, Severson waived his Miranda rights, admitted to the shooting, and claimed that he was scared that Hayden was going to harm him or his daughter. Severson also recounted to law enforcement a history of confrontations between himself and Hayden. Roughly a year before the shooting, in April 2018, Hayden and another man followed Severson and Severson’s brother-in-law into the parking lot of an IGA. Hayden exited his vehicle and immediately began assaulting Severson’s brother-in-law, attempting to drag him from the passenger side of the vehicle Severson was driving. Additionally, although he did not tell law enforcement during his initial interview on the night of the shooting, Severson later recounted a March 2018 incident in which Hayden robbed Severson at gunpoint.

¶5 Severson was charged by information with deliberate homicide in violation of § 45-5-102, MCA.¹ On October 2, 2020, a jury found Severson guilty of mitigated deliberate homicide. The District Court sentenced him to forty years in prison. We discuss additional pertinent facts below.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶6 [1] We review the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss de novo to determine whether the district court’s conclusions of law are correct. State v. Seiffert, 2010 MT 169, ¶ 10, 357 Mont. 188, 237 P.3d 669. We exercise plenary review of constitutional questions, including alleged violations of a criminal defendant’s due process rights. State v. Jackson, 2009 MT 427, ¶ 50, 354 Mont. 63, 221 P.3d 1213 (citing State v. West, 2008 MT 338, ¶ 13, 346 Mont. 244, 194 P.3d 683).

DISCUSSION

¶7 1. Did the District Court err when it denied Severson's motion to dismiss based on the State's failure to disclose favorable evidence?

¶8 Severson claims that the State violated his right to due process by failing to disclose favorable evidence as required under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963), and Montana law. At issue are law enforcement investigative reports of a burglary of Severson’s home and the contents of Watson’s cell phone.

¶9 On the night of the shooting, after taking Severson to the police station and providing a statement, Karina returned to the home she and Severson shared and discovered it had been burglarized that evening. In the ensuing investigation, police identified Keaston Johns, Logan Krauser, and Immanuel Brown as the primary suspects. Johns was Hayden’s girlfriend at the time of the shooting. Karina testified that she believed the assailants stole several electronics, a guitar, a shotgun, and roughly $2,000 cash from the home. On August 6, 2019, in an unrelated search of Watson’s apartment, police discovered Karina’s medical marijuana card in a safe in Watson’s room. In an interview with officers following the search of his residence, Watson stated that following the shooting, while in a parking lot adjacent to the Loaf ’N Jug, he received $300 from the two men suspected in the burglary of Severson’s home.²

¶10 On October 30, 2019, Severson sought to compel the disclosure of any "information and reports" of law enforcement regarding the burglary. The State objected, arguing the reports were irrelevant to Severson’s defense. Finding he had failed to demonstrate a need for the report evidence, the District Court denied Severson’s motion on January 7, 2020. On September 4, 2020, roughly three weeks before his trial, Severson again moved to compel disclosure of the evidence.³ The District Court, reasoning that Severson could receive the investigative information as the victim of the burglary, ordered that the reports be disclosed.

¶11 Upon reviewing the reports and learning of the potential connections between the burglary, Watson, and Hayden, Severson moved the District Court to compel disclosure of the contents of Watson’s cell phone, which had been in the State’s possession since the night of the shooting. The Defense asserted that Watson and Hayden may have intercepted Severson at the Loaf ’N Jug as part of a conspiracy to burglarize Severson’s home. On September 28, 2020, the first day of Severson’s trial, the State notified the court that it had never attempted to unlock the phone or to view its contents because, in the words of the prosecutor, the State "[ didn’t] have any indication that [it was] relevant." The court ordered Watson to appear the following day to unlock the phone for the court to examine. That evening, upon being notified by the prosecutor that the court would order him to unlock his phone, Watson asked "if he had to." During the hearing the next morning, Watson testified that he could no longer recall the phone’s passcode.⁴ Recognizing the significant time and effort needed for investigators to pursue entry of the phone, the court asked Severson if he wished to continue the trial until the phone could be unlocked. Concerned that Severson already had been in custody for fifteen months, Severson’s attorney rejected the court’s offer of a continuance.

¶12 Unable to access the potentially exculpatory cell phone information, Severson made two motions based on alleged violations of his rights to due process and a fair trial. First, following Watson’s inability to access the phone, Severson moved orally to exclude Watson from testifying. Severson then moved to dismiss the case. The District Court denied both motions because, due to the State’s failure to access the information on the phone and Watson’s inability to unlock it, Severson had not shown that any evidence on the phone was favorable to him. See State v. Williams, 2018 MT 194, ¶ 21, 392 Mont. 285, 423 P.3d 596.

¶13 Trial proceeded as scheduled. Severson was found guilty and sentenced to forty years in the Montana State Prison.

¶14 Five months after trial, law enforcement was able to access the contents of Watson’s phone. On June 29, 2021, the District Court ordered that the contents of the phone be filed under seal and...