Frazier v. Miller

• Decision Date: 13 April 2021
• Docket Number: DA 20-0031
• Citation: 2021 MT 85,484 P.3d 912
• Parties: ESTATE OF Nicholas Tyson FRAZIER; and Jeanette Young ; by and through Personal Representative Brittney King f/k/a/ Brittney Chatriand; Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Erik MILLER and John Does 1-10, Defendant, Appellee, and Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

484 P.3d 912

2021 MT 85

ESTATE OF Nicholas Tyson FRAZIER; and Jeanette Young ; by and through Personal Representative Brittney King f/k/a/ Brittney Chatriand; Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.Erik MILLER and John Does 1-10, Defendant, Appellee, and Cross-Appellant.

DA 20-0031

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: February 17, 2021

Decided: April 13, 2021

For Appellants: Nathan G. Wagner, Jenna P. Lyons, Sullivan, Wagner & Lyons, PLLC, Missoula, Montana

For Appellee: Cynthia L. Walker, Patrick M. Sullivan, Poore, Roth & Robinson, P.C., Butte, Montana

Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Appellants the Estate of Nicholas Tyson Frazier, through its personal representative Brittney King f/k/a Brittany Chatriand, and Jeanette Young (collectively the "Estate"), appeal the judgment on a jury verdict finding that Appellee and Cross-Appellant Erik Miller was justified when he used deadly force against Frazier. The Estate challenges the Third Judicial District Court's ruling on the Estate's constitutional tort claims, the Special Verdict Form directing the jury to consider justifiable use of force before determining Officer Miller's negligence, and the District Court's failure to allow counsel to make a record of their objections during trial. We affirm on all issues and therefore decline to consider Miller's cross-appeal that he was entitled to statutory immunity under § 2-9-305, MCA. We restate the issues as follows:

1. Did the District Court err in precluding jury consideration of the Estate's constitutional tort claim?

2. Did the Special Verdict Form fail to clearly and fairly present the jury with the ultimate questions of fact?

3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by failing to record all sidebar discussions of evidentiary objections?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On the evening of December 19, 2014, Nicholas Frazier called the Deer Lodge Police Department reporting that he was assaulted that night at a Christmas party. Deer Lodge Police Officers Erik Miller and Gavin Roselles responded to the call. The officers arrived at Frazier's residence—his parents’ home—to find Frazier heavily intoxicated, crying, and overall in a highly emotional state. Frazier reported that Lonnie Morgan, a partygoer at the nearby Christmas party, assaulted him and that he wanted to press charges. Officers Miller and Roselles gave Frazier an incident report form to fill out, watched him enter his house, and then went to the location of the Christmas party to continue their investigation.

¶3 The officers interviewed several witnesses at the Christmas party, including Frazier's mother and stepfather, Jeanette and Robert Young. The Youngs had not invited Frazier to join them at the party because they wanted a "stress-free" time there. Frazier nonetheless soon arrived and began drinking heavily, becoming argumentative, and making other guests uncomfortable. The party hosts and the Youngs eventually decided Frazier should be taken back home. When Frazier refused to leave, a host and several others escorted him out, placed him in a car, and drove him to the Youngs’ residence. Lonnie Morgan was one of the people in the car with Frazier; due to Frazier's anger at being forced to leave, Morgan apparently physically restrained Frazier in the back seat, leading to Frazier's assault claim. Officers Miller and Roselles concluded their investigation at the party and returned to the police station.

¶4 Soon after they arrived, dispatch received a call from a male at the Youngs’ residence—Frazier—asking dispatch to call a funeral home because there will be a suicide, and it will occur before any first responders will have time to respond. Miller and Roselles were sent to respond to the call. Although dispatch informed the officers only that they were responding to a suicidal male at the same residence as the assault call, Miller and Roselles presumed Frazier placed the call because of their earlier interaction with him and because Miller knew Frazier had a history of suicide attempts.

¶5 Miller and Roselles arrived at the house with their patrol car's lights off. In order to ensure their own safety and preliminarily assess the situation, the officers each patrolled around one side of the house. Because all the shades were drawn, however, the officers were not able to gather any additional information. Officer Roselles finished checking his section of the perimeter first. He stepped onto the front porch and knocked on the door several times, to no response. At about this time, Officer Miller joined Officer Roselles on the porch by the front door. Officer Roselles then turned the doorknob and opened the front door a few inches. At this point, Frazier responded, yelling at the officers that they did not have the right to be there, to close the door, and to get out of the house and go away. Frazier also stated that he was "fine." Neither officer could see Frazier at this point—only hear him. Officer Roselles backed off the front porch and called dispatch, attempting to obtain additional information that might justify a warrantless entry or the phone number for Frazier's parents, so that he might obtain consent to enter the house. Dispatch could not provide him with either.

¶6 By the time Officer Roselles finished his call, Officer Miller had pushed the front door fully open; in doing so, his hand reached inside Frazier's home. At the time he pushed the door open, Miller still could not see Frazier. At this point, Officer Roselles turned on his body-camera and took a position slightly behind Officer Miller by the front door. Frazier then quickly stepped in front of the doorway, holding a pistol to his own head; in response, Officer Miller immediately drew and presented his service pistol. Still holding his pistol to his head, Frazier repeatedly begged the officers to shoot him. Officer Miller attempted to de-escalate the situation and told Frazier to put his gun down, but Frazier ignored his requests and continued to ask the officers to shoot him. While Officer Miller was still attempting to calm the situation, Frazier moved his gun's barrel away from his head and toward Officer Miller stating, "Suicide by cop, I know all about it." Officer Miller then fired three rounds from his pistol, all striking Frazier, who collapsed to the floor. The officers attempted first aid, to no avail.

¶7 In 2017 the Estate filed its complaint in this matter, alleging assault, wrongful death, negligence by Officer Miller, and violation of Frazier's rights under the Montana Constitution. The constitutional tort claim argued that by opening Frazier's front door and breaching the threshold of the residence, Officer Miller conducted an unconstitutional search and seizure and unconstitutionally invaded Frazier's privacy. The Estate also named the City of Deer Lodge ("City") and Michael Gray, then Chief of the Deer Lodge Police Department, as defendants vicariously liable for Officer Miller's actions.

¶8 Officer Miller filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims against him. The motion argued in part that he was statutorily immune under § 2-9-305, MCA. The Estate responded by voluntarily dismissing the City and Gray, leaving Officer Miller as the only named defendant. The District Court rejected Officer Miller's immunity argument but granted him summary judgment on the Estate's constitutional claim. It held that there was no actionable violation of Frazier's right of privacy and no unlawful search or seizure because "no reasonable person, juror or otherwise, could reasonably expect that there would not be law enforcement entry without a warrant, under the circumstances created by [Frazier]. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy. There was no search or seizure as contemplated by the Montana Constitution."

¶9 The case went before a Powell County jury in December 2019. Officer Miller asserted justified use of force as his primary defense; the Estate countered by arguing that the officers had no legal right to enter the house after Frazier told them that he was fine and to leave. At the conclusion of trial, the District Court presented the jury with a Special Verdict Form. It directed the jurors first to consider whether Officer Miller's use of force was justified. If they found the use of force justified, they were to end deliberations. If not, they were instructed to consider whether Officer Miller was negligent. The jury found Officer Miller's use of force justified, and the District Court entered judgment in his favor.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶10 We review de novo a district court's order granting summary judgment.

Dorwart v. Caraway , 2002 MT 240, ¶ 28, 312 Mont. 1, 58 P.3d 128 (citing Clark v. Eagle Sys. , 279 Mont. 279, 283, 927 P.2d 995, 997 (1996) ). A party seeking summary judgment must establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Dorwart , ¶ 28 (citing M. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ; Clark , 279 Mont. at 283, 927 P.2d at 997-98 ). "Conclusory statements, speculative assertions, and mere denials are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Moe v. Butte-Silver Bow County , 2016 MT 103, ¶ 14, 383 Mont. 297, 371 P.3d 415 (citing Davis v. State , 2015 MT 264, ¶ 7, 381 Mont. 59, 357 P.3d 320 ). We review a district court's conclusions of law for correctness and its findings of fact for clear error. Moe , ¶ 14 (citing Pilgeram v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc. , 2013 MT 354, ¶ 9, 373 Mont. 1, 313 P.3d 839 ). "The availability of a cause of action presents a question of law that we review to determine if it is correct." Sunburst Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc. , 2007 MT 183, ¶ 60, 338 Mont. 259, 165 P.3d 1079 (citing Dorwart , ¶ 29 ).

¶11 It is within a district court's discretion to use a special verdict form, which we review for abuse of discretion. M. R. Civ. P. 49(a) ; Kiely Constr. L.L.C. v. City of Red Lodge , 2002 MT 241, ¶ 57, 312 Mont. 52, 57 P.3d 836 ...