State v. Bier

Supreme Court of Montana
591 P.2d 1115 (1979)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A person commits negligent homicide when their conduct represents a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe, and this conduct foreseeably creates a risk that results in another person's death.

Facts:

Richard Bier and his wife, Sharon Bier, returned to their trailer after drinking heavily; Sharon had consumed two six-packs of beer.
An argument ensued between the couple.
Richard Bier, intending to leave, went into the bedroom, but Sharon Bier stood in the doorway, blocking his exit.
Richard Bier took a .357 Magnum revolver from a closet, cocked it, and cast it onto the bed.
He stated words to the effect that to stop him, she would have to shoot him.
Sharon Bier picked up the gun, pointed it at her own head with both thumbs on the trigger.
Richard Bier shouted that the gun was loaded and either grabbed or slapped at it.
The gun discharged, inflicting a fatal wound to Sharon Bier's neck.

Procedural Posture:

Richard Bier was charged with negligent homicide in the Cascade County District Court, a trial court.
He entered a plea of not guilty.
Following a trial, a jury found Richard Bier guilty of the charge.
Richard Bier (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Montana.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a person's conduct of pulling out, cocking, and throwing a loaded firearm within reach of their intoxicated spouse during an argument, and then challenging them to use it, constitute a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care sufficient for a conviction of negligent homicide?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Shea

Yes. A person's conduct of pulling out, cocking, and throwing a loaded firearm within reach of their intoxicated spouse during an argument constitutes a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care sufficient for a negligent homicide conviction. Negligent homicide does not require a purposeful or knowing mental state, but only a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care, which is analogous to gross negligence in tort law. The defendant’s actions of pulling out, cocking, and throwing a loaded gun near his intoxicated wife clearly met this standard. The court reasoned that the risk created by the defendant's conduct—that his intoxicated wife would shoot either him or herself—was foreseeable, especially since he challenged her to use the weapon. The defendant's own testimony admitting he was aware of his wife's intoxicated condition and should have realized the danger was sufficient basis for the jury to find him guilty.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the 'negligence' element required for negligent homicide under Montana law, establishing that it is equivalent to gross negligence in torts. The case sets a precedent that a defendant's act of creating a highly dangerous and volatile situation can be the legal cause of a death, satisfying the elements of the crime, even if the victim took the final physical action. It underscores that foreseeability of harm is a key component in assessing criminal negligence. This holding influences how prosecutors charge cases where a defendant's reckless creation of risk, rather than direct action, leads to a fatality.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Bier (1979)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"