MT: Forensic Evidence doesn't match story. Result: Homicide Charges

Gun Watch ^ | 5 April, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Two years ago, in May of 2013, James George Stiffler shot a man who was burglarizing his home in Lewis and Clark County, Montana. The burglar, Henry Tomas Johnson of Helena, managed to make it to his car, but died before being able to leave the property. The case illustrates the ability of forensic science to determine details of what happened. From helenair.com:

Henry Thomas Johnson, 37, of Helena, was shot dead in 2013 while apparently ransacking a home in Lewis and Clark County. Nearly two years later, the county attorney has charged homeowner James George Stiffler with felony deliberate homicide, alleging Johnson was shot in the back while trying to escape the home through a window.

Stiffler had arrived home to see a car parked outside and Johnson inside. He retrieved a Star 9 mm Ultrastar imported by Interarms. Stiffler said that he had gone inside, and fired at Johnson inside the house, toward the West.

But investigators were unable to find any blood in the house, or a bullet or bullet holes, even though the bullet had exited Johnson's body. They did find a 9 mm bullet outside with DNA that matched Johnson. The bullet location was consistent with a shot fired by Stiffler while inside the house, at Johnson as he was exiting a window, and indicated a different direction of fire than what Stiffler had stated.

These discrepancies lead to the "Deliberate Homicide" charge, which is apparently based on the theory that Johnson was fleeing the house through a window when shot, and was no longer a threat.

A trial is scheduled. This may be another test of Montana's Castle doctrine law. In this case it is clear that the house had been broken into; that the gun was fired inside the house; and that the burglar was inside, even if he was at the window when shot. Here is the Montana statute. From findlaw.com:

(1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure. -

It is likely that a jury will decide if the castle doctrine fits this case.  Mr. Stiffler might have been able to avoid much unpleasantness if he had been more careful with his statements to police; or if he had waited to talk to an attorney before talking to police.

Commenters at the article note that he might have been able to disable Johnson's car.   It is a smart action that might have been taken.  It is always easy to find alternate courses of action after the fact, but it is useful to consider what might have been done better.  From the comments:

Stiffler made three mistakes:
(1) He did not block or disable the criminal's car to prevent escape.
(2) Bigger mistake: He entered the house instead of letting the police do it.
(3) Biggest mistake of all: He lied to the police.
However, when a home intruder is "trying to escape," he may be running to get a weapon. In that respect the murder charge looks bogus to me.

It remains to be seen if a Montana jury will find in favor of a homeowner with no previous criminal history, or if they will find that he was not justified.

 ©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Politely tell the police that you have been advised to talk to an attorney before you make a statement, just as police are advised. They should understand.

[bgill]

That’s too bad.

At least the guy won’t be robbing or worse anymore.

[Joe Boucher]

were I on this jury I would not vote for conviction.

[Kenny Bunk]

Do not, EVER, shoot off mouth after being forced to shoot off gun. Don't talk to the cops without a lawyer present.

Now that the cops and prosecutors' offices are thoroughly infiltrated by Affirmative Action Transexual Gay Loony Left Latino Feminists of a color other than yours, any remotely possible negative connotation to one's remarks, one's grammar, one's appearance, or choice of domestic pet can and will be used against one, if one were to be forced to discharge a firearm.

Let us pray then. that the jury empaneled will have one, or possibly even two, citizens on it who do not fit the officer's description noted above.

[BitWielder1]

He was supposed to block or disable a car outside his home before knowing with certainty it belonged to an intruder in his home?
No Castle Doctrine laws suggest or require anything of the sort.
How exactly was he supposed to do that? How would it prevent the perp from simply running?
It sounds like an after-the-fact suggestion with little practical value, on the par with Joe Biden's twin shotgun blasts.

[mlo]

"It is likely that a jury will decide if the castle doctrine fits this case."

That's not the issue. As I've pointed out many times in these sorts of threads, the Castle Doctrine isn't carte blanche to shoot anyone in your house. Now here's someone being prosecuted for murder, proving the point.

[mlo]

If he hadn’t talked to the cops it wouldn’t have changed the forensic results. His problem isn’t just that he lied about it. It’s that he shot the guy when he was exiting the window. That would still be true even if he admitted it or said nothing.

[Col Freeper]

.....Joe Biden's twin shotgun blasts.

Ah yes, good ole Joe .....

[Paladin2]

The guy could always have been a threat to return if had successfully escaped.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

I predict the jury will find not guilty.

[smokingfrog]

If it’s dark, you may not be able to tell if someone is armed or not. But this guy should have called the cops first and waited outside, blocking his car if possible.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

I hope Stiffler’s Mom wasn’t harmed!

[dfwgator]

[DoodleDawg]

I predict the jury will find not guilty.

Having been shown to lie once to the police the prosecution will ask why anything else he has to say should be believed? So I think his defense is pretty weak.

[TigersEye]

The guy could always have been a threat to return if had successfully escaped.

Then you could shoot him.

[editor-surveyor]

.
The thug could have been standing near the window, and fallen back through it when he was shot.

A decent lawyer can win this case easily.
.

[marktwain]

From what I read, it is pretty clear that the burglar, Johnson, was shot at more than 5 feet, and that the shot went out the window, into the yard, after exiting Johnson’s body. It was not so certain that he was in the window frame at the time of the shot.

The entrance and exit holes were about the same height from the ground on his body, so it seems that he was pretty upright when shot, an unusual position for someone exiting a “normal” window.

The shooter may have been justified under Montana law. A jury will decide.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “The entrance and exit holes were about the same height from the ground on his body, so it seems that he was pretty upright when shot, an unusual position for someone exiting a “normal” window” <<

.
Correct.

There is no evidence of any intent to do anything but disable by the shooter. This is shown well by the fact that the thug made it to his car. There is literally no case.

Mlo has been a statist contrarian here from the day he showed up.

No new thing under the sun!
.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

We will see. Depends on the makeup of the jury.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

She’s got it going on!