Court: Lau must testify to explain self-defense claim
The Montana Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that Martin Lau, a Great Falls financial adviser charged in a fatal 2012 shooting near Fairfield, will not be able to use an out-of-court statement to provide his version of events leading to the death of Don Kline.
As a result, despite a 2009 law that expanded legal protections for Montanans seeking to justify use of force on self-defense grounds, Lau will likely have to take the witness stand to explain his actions — giving prosecutors the opportunity to question his account through cross-examination.
Lau faces a deliberate homicide charge in the Aug. 18, 2012, death of Kline at the Teton County home of Susan Pfiefer, with whom Kline reportedly lived. Apparently on the premises at Pfiefer’s request, Lau has admitted to shooting Kline but claimed he acted in self-defense.
He seeks to take advantage of the 2009 law, House Bill 228, which shifted the burden of proof in self-defense cases from defendants to prosecutors. Instead of requiring defendants like Lau to prove they acted reasonably in using force, Montana courts must now ask prosecutors to prove that actions said to be in self-defense were unjustified, essentially providing defendants with the benefit of the doubt.
At issue before the Supreme Court was how Lau should formally make his self-defense claim as his case proceeds to trial, and whether he could present his justification for shooting Kline through a prepared statement provided to investigators.
In that statement, Lau alleged that Pfeifer, a friend, had been subjected to repeated abuse by Kline, and that he had shot Kline in response to being punched by him.
In a pre-trial judgment, Teton County District Judge Robert Olson ruled that the statement could be presented to jurors without requiring Lau to take the witness stand. Prosecutors with the state Attorney General and Teton County Attorney’s offices protested to the Supreme Court, arguing the ruling unjustly shielded Lau’s version of events from scrutiny necessary to test its reliability.
“Without cross-examination, the statement is unreliable hearsay,” Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Krauss told the court during oral arguments in April.
Private attorney Kenneth Olson, representing Lau, argued that prosecutors are simply trying to force his client to testify at trial, infringing on Lau’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
In its Tuesday ruling, the Supreme Court sided with prosecutors, finding that allowing Lau to introduce his claims about Kline without testifying directly would violate trial rules that generally prohibit hearsay evidence, or indirect statements not made in court or subject to cross-examination.
The court disagreed with arguments by Olson and the Montana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers that House Bill 228 justifies an exception.
“(They) claim that requiring Lau to comply with the rules of evidence will effectively compel him to choose between his right to present a full defense and his right to remain silent,” Justice Mike McGrath wrote in the court’s opinion. “They point to no authority for the proposition that a defendant is entitled to circumvent well-established rules regarding the admissibility of hearsay and character evidence.”
“Provided Lau can do so through the introduction of admissible evidence,” McGrath also wrote, “he may be able to argue before the jury that his knowledge of specific instances of conduct by Kline led him to use deadly force.”
The Teton County Clerk of Court’s Office said Wednesday morning that, pending formal receipt of the Supreme Court’s ruling, a trial date for Lau had not yet been set.
Reach Staff Writer Eric Dietrich at 791-6527 or edietrich@greatfallstribune.com. He can also be followed on Twitter at @GFTrib_EricD.