Smith argues she didn't get a fair trial

The Wyoming Supreme Court convened on Wednesday to consider Marty Smith’s appeal against her conviction as an accomplice to the death of local man Doug Haar in 2018. Justices will now decide whether to overturn the jury’s guilty verdict on felony counts of accessory before the fact to involuntary manslaughter and to aggravated assault and battery.

Smith was sentenced to up to 18 years in jail after the verdict. However, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel Desiree Wilson argued during the hearing that she was not given a fair trial.

Wilson’s argument centers on the instructions that were given to jury members before they retired to consider a verdict. At that time during a trial, the jury is issued with details of the aspects of Wyoming law that are considered relevant to the case; what exactly is included in these instructions is discussed by counsel on both sides and decided by the judge presiding over the case.

Wilson argued that the jury for Smith’s trial was not given an instruction that could have drastically changed how they viewed the evidence.

“It ended up confusing the jury,” she said, because the jury only had access to 50-75% of the relevant law for the case. Because the jury’s conclusion was based on an incomplete understanding of the law, she said, it “cannot be trusted” and Smith’s conviction should be overturned.

The instruction Wilson referred to would have explained the concept of a person’s right to defend another person. Wyoming law acknowledges the right come to another’s defense if you have a reasonable belief that person is in imminent danger of harm or death.

Under this law, coming to another’s defense means effectively stepping into their shoes and then exercising that person’s right of self-defense on their behalf.

During the incident, Smith and Haar were said to have bickered and begun pushing each other. When Smith’s then-boyfriend Jesse Johnson became involved in the altercation, he took Haar to the ground and placed him in a chokehold for several minutes, which resulted in Haar’s death.

Johnson and Smith were tried separately, with Smith charged as an accessory to the crimes for which Johnson was accused of. Johnson, whose trial came second, was acquitted by the jury on all charges.

Smith’s jury was instructed on Jesse Johnson’s right to defend himself, said Wilson, but what was missing was Smith’s right to defend Johnson.

Joshua Charles Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued that giving this instruction would have been “redundant and cumulative”. The jury was asked to judge Johnson’s actions in this case, he said.

If the jury had concluded that Johnson was acting in self-defense, he said, this would have meant that no crime had been committed. Therefore, Smith could not have been convicted as an accomplice.

Because the jury did convict Smith, Eames argued, the conclusion reached in the juror’s room cannot have been that Johnson was acting in self-defense. Therefore, Smith would not have had the right to defend him.

Wilson felt that this argument was “flawed in fundamental ways”. She pointed out that the issue was not necessarily considered from Smith’s perspective.

“Do we consider the right to defend another only from the perspective of the person being rescued?” she questioned.

In Wyoming, said Wilson, statute says it is permissible to defend another person in a circumstance where a reasonable person would judge it necessary to step in to prevent injury or death to that person. The key element, she said, is that the person who steps in has an “honest belief” in that danger, whether or not it turns out to have been real.

The state’s defense of Smith’s conviction partly relies on the idea that, during the trial, Smith was identified as the aggressor in the situation that led to Haar’s death. As the aggressor, she could not also have been acting in self-defense.

Wilson suggested that, for purposes of discussion, let’s assume Smith was indeed the aggressor.

“Does that take away her right to defend another person?” she asked.

These are two separate inquiries, Wilson said, and the court blurred them by saying she was the aggressor so she doesn’t have the right to defend someone else. Wilson suggested that Smith could have been acting in self-defense from the very beginning of the incident, but the jury was not given the opportunity to consider that option.

“If the first act was an act of defense, they’re not an aggressor at all,” she said.

Wilson argued that, contrary to what was decided during the trial, there was “plenty of evidence” that Smith could have felt she and Johnson were in danger – before the altercation even began. She knew that Haar had a tendency to become violent when drinking, Wilson said, and she also knew he was bigger than Johnson, very angry with him and had stated he wanted to harm him.

This was sufficient evidence to justify giving the jury the instruction about defense of others, Wilson said. If they had been given that instruction, might they have found her actions were not aggressive at all but were defensive in nature?

If that was the case, Wilson said, then Smith was not criminally culpable at all. Instead, by leaving out this instruction, Wilson argued that the court forced Smith to defend Johnson in order to defend herself.

Wyoming law says that Smith must have reasonably believed there was a danger, Wilson argued, which means evaluating the situation from her perspective.

“We have to consider Ms. Smith’s state of mind,” Wilson said. By saying the only thing that matters is what Johnson believed, “we’re cutting out half of the law”.

“This is a due process issue…this is a fundamental deprivation of a constitutional right,” she said.

Eames, however, argued that it is illogical to suggest that the jury would have rejected Johnson’s right to self defense but then agreed Smith had somehow stepped into his shoes and reasserted that right.

A second issue cropped up during the oral arguments. Supreme Court Justices questioned the fact that Smith’s case was tried before Johnson’s; as Smith was accused of being an accomplice to his alleged crimes, his was the primary case.

Justices suggested that the trials were therefore held out of order and the person who could have shed light on what he was thinking at the time was silenced, as he was not available to testify. Johnson was, of course, later acquitted on all charges.

“You sure couldn’t convict her today, could you?” commented one of the Justices.

Eames responded that it is recognized under the law that different trials commonly lead to different results. This was a different jury, he said.

Smith did not ask to continue her trial until after his and did not object to the timing. These issues are therefore not at play for this case and no constitutional rights were violated.

The Wyoming Supreme Court’s written opinion on Smith’s appeal will be issued at a later date.