## Facts

- Deputy Sheriff Donovan responded to a reported suicide at a trailer in Great Falls, Montana, and found Sharon Bier on the floor with a neck wound; a .357 Magnum revolver was on the bed.
- Earlier that evening, Richard Lee Bier and Sharon Bier attended stock car races and drank heavily; Sharon consumed an unusually large amount of beer.
- Bier told the deputy at the scene that his wife shot herself, and later gave a post-warning statement describing an argument at home.
- According to Bier, during the argument he removed a revolver from a closet holster, cocked it, and threw it onto the bed while stating that to stop him from leaving she would have to shoot him.
- Sharon picked up the revolver and pointed it at herself; Bier attempted to redirect it by grabbing or slapping at the gun, and it discharged, striking her in the neck.
- Sharon was hospitalized and died six days later without regaining consciousness.
- The State charged Bier with negligent homicide; a jury convicted him in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove negligent homicide, including that Bier’s conduct was a gross deviation from reasonable care and foreseeably caused Sharon’s death.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defense request for a jury view of the trailer.
3. Whether the trial court erred by excluding lay opinion testimony about bullet angles under Rule 701.
4. Whether judicial comments and prosecutorial argument deprived Bier of a fair trial and required reversal.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the negligent homicide conviction.
- The Court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Bier’s conduct grossly negligent and the death a foreseeable result.
- The Court held the denial of a jury view was within the trial court’s discretion.
- The Court upheld exclusion of lay opinion on bullet trajectory as outside the proper scope of lay testimony.
- The Court found no reversible unfairness from the judge’s remarks or the prosecutor’s closing argument, particularly where no contemporaneous objection was made.

## Legal Principles

- Negligent homicide is established by conduct constituting a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.
- An accidental killing may support negligent homicide when the defendant’s grossly careless conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk and death is an actual and foreseeable result.
- In sufficiency review, the evidence is assessed in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational jury could find the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A jury view of a scene is discretionary; denial is not error when photographs, diagrams, and testimony adequately present the layout and a view would be cumulative.
- Lay opinions are admissible only if rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to the jury; technical matters such as bullet trajectory generally require expert testimony.
- Claims of unfairness from remarks in trial or closing argument are commonly subject to waiver and harmless-error analysis when not preserved by timely objection.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Bier’s negligent homicide conviction because a jury could reasonably find that cocking and throwing a loaded revolver within reach of a heavily intoxicated spouse during a domestic dispute, and striking at the gun while it was pointed at her, was a gross deviation from reasonable care that foreseeably resulted in death; the remaining asserted trial errors did not warrant reversal.


State v. Bier, 181 Mont. 27, 591 P.2d 1115 (Mont. 1979)