The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Lorenzo James Harris's deliberate homicide conviction on Feb. 3, rejecting his appeal that challenged the trial court's handling of potential lesser charges in a bench trial.
Justice Katherine Bidegaray delivered the court's opinion in *State of Montana v. Lorenzo James Harris* (2026 MT 14), affirming Harris's conviction following a six-day bench trial in Yellowstone County's Thirteenth Judicial District Court.
Harris was convicted of deliberate homicide under Montana Code § 45-5-102(1)(a), enhanced for weapon use under § 46-18-221, along with tampering with witnesses and informants under § 45-7-206(1)(a). The charges stemmed from the shooting death of James Williams, with the state alleging Harris "purposely or knowingly caused the death of another human being" by shooting Williams "with a firearm."
On appeal, Harris challenged only his deliberate homicide conviction, leaving his tampering conviction unchallenged. His central argument focused on due process concerns, contending that the district court, sitting as factfinder in the bench trial, was required to consider mitigated deliberate homicide as a lesser charge before convicting him of deliberate homicide.
The Montana Supreme Court rejected this argument on procedural grounds, finding Harris failed to preserve his claims in the form he advanced on appeal. The court noted that Harris "did not ask the District Court to consider mitigated deliberate homicide at trial and instead pursued a theory that, if believed, would have required acquittal of both deliberate and mitigated homicide."
The case centered on Montana's legal framework for deliberate homicide charges and the distinction between deliberate homicide and mitigated deliberate homicide. Under Montana law, mitigated deliberate homicide represents a lesser charge that can apply when certain mitigating circumstances are present, carrying reduced penalties compared to deliberate homicide.
In bench trials, where a judge rather than jury serves as factfinder, questions arise about the court's obligation to consider lesser charges sua sponte—meaning on its own initiative without a request from either party. Harris argued that due process required such consideration in his case.
However, the Montana Supreme Court applied plain error review to Harris's claims, given his failure to preserve the arguments at trial. Plain error review represents a more stringent standard requiring defendants to demonstrate that obvious errors occurred that affected substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings.
The court found Harris failed to meet this burden, stating he "has not met his burden for plain error review" and therefore declined to review his claims on their merits.
The procedural posture proved crucial to the case's outcome. During the original trial, Harris's defense strategy focused on complete acquittal rather than seeking consideration of lesser charges. This tactical decision created preservation issues that ultimately undermined his appellate arguments.
The case was prosecuted by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen's office, with Assistant Attorney General Christine Hutchison and Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito representing the state. Harris was represented by Melinda A. Driscoll of Plath Kemmick Law, LLC in Billings.
The appeal was submitted on briefs on Nov. 13, 2025, with the Montana Supreme Court issuing its decision on Feb. 3, 2026. The case was assigned number DA 22-0632 and originated from Yellowstone County District Court case DC 21-0533, presided over by Judge Michael G. Moses.
The ruling demonstrates the importance of trial strategy and preservation of legal arguments for appellate review. Harris's decision not to request consideration of mitigated deliberate homicide at trial significantly limited his appellate options, forcing him to rely on the more difficult plain error standard.
The case also highlights distinctions between jury and bench trials in handling lesser charges. While jury instructions typically address potential lesser charges, bench trials may present different procedural considerations regarding a judge's sua sponte obligations.
This decision maintains Harris's deliberate homicide conviction and enhanced sentence for weapon use. The tampering with witnesses and informants conviction remains undisturbed, as Harris chose not to challenge that aspect of his convictions.
The Montana Supreme Court's affirmance closes this chapter of Harris's case, though potential federal appeals or post-conviction relief options may remain available through separate proceedings.
The ruling reinforces Montana's appellate standards for preserving legal arguments and demonstrates the high bar defendants face when seeking plain error review of unpreserved claims in criminal cases.