Court hears Wood's appeal

At Montana State University in Bozeman on Monday, the Montana Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding two of the issues addressed in former Thompson Falls resident Danielle Wood’s appeal of her 2021 conviction for deliberate homicide in the May 2018 murder of her former partner, Matthew LaFriniere. Wood was found guilty following a two-week jury trial at the Sanders County Courthouse before former Judge Deborah Kim Christopher in January 2021, which she appealed in May of that year.

Wood is currently serving her 100-year sentence in the Montana State Women's Prison in Billings.

Most appeals are decided based upon the written briefs that are submitted by the parties, however, if a case requires further discussion in addition to the filed briefs, the Supreme Court may elect to schedule oral argument to be held in person before the Justices. About 15 cases each year are scheduled for oral argument, according to the Supreme Court’s website.

In Wood’s case, the Supreme Court requested a limited argument, only allowing the parties to address two of the issues raised in the appeal: whether the District Court properly instructed the jury on accountability and whether it properly admitted evidence of cell-site location information (CSLI). Wood’s appellate defense counsel, Kathryn Hutchison, was allotted 40 minutes to address these issues, while the State, represented by Bjorn Boyer, received 30 minutes. Justices Beth Baker, Jim Shea, Jim Rice, Laurie McKinnon and Chief Justice Mike McGrath gathered to hear the argument, with Justices Dirk Sandefur and Ingrid Gustafson to review the recorded session at a later date. The present Justices not only heard the argument, but also used the opportunity to pose questions to the parties about the issues being discussed.

Hutchison started her argument, addressing the accountability jury instruction, stating, “You won’t find a case like this anywhere else, where an accountability instruction was allowed to go to the jury, even though the State did not present argument or evidence of two people acting together, using accountability instead as a work around to the problem of a beyond a reasonable doubt standard in a case full of holes.” Hutchison continued, claiming that the State had problems with their case due to the fact that their “timeline was nearly impossible” and Wood not being capable of committing the crime alone, so they relied on the concept of accountability as a fallback for the jurors. With the State actively disavowing the other potential person involved and presenting no claim or evidence of another party involved, Hutchison argued there was no precedence for giving that instruction. There was some discussion between the Justices and Hutchison regarding several concepts, including the verdict form not mentioning accountability and the concept of accountability being historically considered by the Supreme Court as a theory versus Hutchison seemingly making it sound like it should be a separate offense.

Moving on to the issue of the CSLI data, Hutchison argued that the expert witnesses called by the State were not qualified to make the specific assertions they made at trial, nor was the methodology and round trip time (RTT) data used accurate enough to make those assertions. The expert witnesses in question had presented data collected from Verizon and Google as evidence that a Tracfone allegedly purchased and used by Wood that day and Wood’s personal cell phone were in close proximity to each other leading up to the crime. Hutchison claimed the expert witnesses testified that the data showed a more precise location than it really did when it came to where the Tracfone was. With the RTT data being less accurate than represented, Hutchison argued, the area that the Tracfone could have been in is much larger, encasing most of Thompson Falls.

Beginning the State’s argument, Boyer stated that Wood’s counsel “failed to show on appeal that the District Court abused its discretion when the Court instructed the jury on the theory of accountability and because she has failed to show that the District Court abused its discretion in admitting the CSLI evidence,” asking the Justices to affirm the conviction. Boyer argued that the State proved Wood’s liability in the homicide regardless, that it is not relevant that the State didn’t make any argument about a potential accomplice, and that Wood’s trial counsel introduced evidence themselves of accountability by claiming Wood would have been unable to move LaFriniere’s body, allowing the State to request that instruction. Addressing jury instructions, Boyer brought up that another instruction had been given to the jurors regarding unanimity, meaning that the jurors had to all agree on an act or set of acts that would make Wood guilty of the homicide. Additionally, Boyer argued that the State did not have to prove that another actor was involved, just that a crime was committed and the defendant was liable, somehow, for that crime by committing discrete acts. Boyer argued that they could use the instructions as a backdrop preventing the defense from making an incorrect legal argument, which in this case, that if the State couldn’t prove Wood pulled the trigger, the jury should vote to acquit. Regardless, if the instruction was found to be given in error, Boyer made the argument that this particular instruction doesn’t prejudice Wood and wouldn’t be grounds to overturn the conviction.

In regard to the CSLI evidence, Boyer addressed the fact that RTT data is commonly used, but is not available as often, as cell phone providers don’t retain that information as long. Therefore, there is minimal case law existing in respect to that data, although new rulings are emerging. Boyer claimed the expert witnesses never “over promised” on the data and specifically said that this data can’t be used to put a specific person in a specific place at a specific time, but that the data mathematically showed that the two phones were roughly in the same area when the Tracfone was active. In addition, Boyer addressed the contradiction that Wood’s counsel previously argued that the RTT data was precise enough to show what time Wood arrived at LaFriniere’s home, even though the evidence showed she arrived several minutes earlier. As to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, Boyer stated that one witness had 25 years of experience doing this type of work and the other has been found as an expert in multiple appellate courts. The Justices and Boyer further discussed the reliability and accuracy of the RTT data, with Boyer further asserting that as Wood’s counsel doesn’t contest the reliability of the RTT data provided for her personal cell phone, there’s no reason then that the same data wouldn’t be accurate for the Tracfone as well.

Hutchison, in the final few minutes she preserved for rebuttal, cited an example regarding the reliability of the data, where a single RTT data point for Wood’s personal phone (not during the timeline of events for the homicide) showed her being in a different location than she was known to be at, which, as the expert witness explained, could have been inaccurate due to the topography of that particular area. This is why, Hutchison claimed, that the data should have been tested by the expert witnesses at the locations before being presented. Lastly, Hutchison argued that the State misread previous case law in their assertion that they were entitled to provide the accountability jury instruction without presenting evidence to support that theory. Justice Shea questioned that since Wood’s counsel opened the door to using that instruction by presenting a potential other party being involved, but Hutchison argued that as the State specifically disavowed that party’s involvement and the defense is not obligated to prove anything, the State shouldn’t have been able to use that instruction.

Chief Justice McGrath commended both parties on their arguments and advised that the Court will take the matter under advisement with an opinion to be issued in due course.