Haire appeal under advisement

An appeal in a case against Anthony Haire is being taken under advisement in the Wyoming Supreme Court, with a written decision expected at a later date. Oral arguments have been heard by Supreme Court justices, as well as counsel for Haire and the State of Wyoming.

Following a four-day trial in December 2015, Haire was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment. On May 4, 2016, he was sentenced to eight to 10 years with the Wyoming Department of Corrections.

Haire shot and killed Jamye Don SoRelle on April 13, 2015, on property they shared, following an argument. Both previously lived in Thermopolis.

According to statements of facts, on April 13 Haire was grilling in front of his trailer for his family and a friend. When the friend attempted to leave, she found her vehicle was blocked by a truck owned by SoRelle. Attempts were made to get SoRelle to move the truck, and in a phone conversation SoRelle seemed upset the friend’s vehicle was blocking one he typically used and he retaliated by moving another to prevent her leaving. When SoRelle appeared in person he had a handgun and fired a shot between Haire’s wife and friend.

Haire moved the two women inside his residence, retrieved a pistol from his vehicle and took a position behind a truck. Haire claims he saw SoRelle raise his arm and the glimmer of a gun. Haire fired a couple times, SoRelle squared up and raised his gun and Haire emptied his clip at SoRelle. A neighbor testified to hearing one shot followed by the sound of someone emptying a clip. Nine of 12 shots hit SoRelle, who died of those wounds.

Haire contended that he shot SoRelle in self-defense after SoRelle initially fired at him while Haire was in front of his residence. However, it was determined SoRelle was shot while on the ground.

A notice of appeal in the case was filed on May 27, 2016. According to a brief filed Oct. 19, it was argued the trial court erred in refusing defense instruction 15, that there was no duty to retreat at one’s own residence.

There is further argument “a sane, decent, civilized society must provide some such oasis, some shelter from public scrutiny, some insulated enclosure, some enclave, some inviolate place which is a man's castle,” as stated in the case of Silverman vs. United States. Such space is recognized in various contexts, among which is the idea when a person is at home, there is no duty to retreat from an aggressor.

A statement in the argument is Haire was in front of his residence and entitled to the instruction that he had no duty to retreat at that point. The argument is, by refusing that instruction, the court ignored existing case law and denied Haire due process of law.

An additional argument in the appeal is the trial court erred in giving instruction 17, imposing on Haire a duty to retreat. As stated in that argument, SoRelle was an aggressor in the incident, having raised his pistol and shot at people only because they asked him to move his vehicle. There is no evidence he did not fire that first shot or endanger those in the vicinity of the shot, according to the argument.

The argument further states the jury was given instruction which reads Haire was justified in using deadly force only if he retreated as far as he could prior, and the law requires a person to retreat rather than take a life if there is a mode of retreat without increasing peril. The instruction further notes if the jury found Haire could’ve retreated but did not, he could not rely on the self-defense justification.

In a brief filed Dec. 6 by the State of Wyoming, the State contends refusing to give instruction 15 was not an error as Haire and SoRelle were standing in a common parking area where both had a right to be when Haire shot and killed SoRelle.

In order to decide the issue, the court will have to consider whether the absolute right to stand one’s ground inside one’s home applies to the common parking area. The State contends Haire hasn’t argued for an extension of the privilege past the walls of residence, and even if it were to extend outside a residence it does not extend so far as to apply to the parking area.

As for the argument of giving the jury an instruction that Haire had a duty to retreat, the State asserts this was not in error. There was evidence to support a jury conclusion that either Haire or SoRelle was the aggressor at the time of the shooting. The State further contends Haire has not shown the instruction caused prejudice, even if it was given in error.

Attorney John P. Worrall, who prosecuted the original case, explained it’s being argued Haire’s case comes under the “castle doctrine.” Worrall further explained under the doctrine if a person has a fear of death due to an intruder in his or her home, the homeowner has the right to use deadly force against the intruder.

However Worrall noted, the law applies to those incidents within one’s own home and it is the hope and argument presented through the appeal that the castle doctrine should include property around the home. He added Haire is looking to include not just his castle, but the moat, the nearby village and the entire fiefdom.