The Montana Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to grant a new trial to a 44-year-old Kila man convicted in the August 2022 shooting outside a Martin City bar, finding the trial court did not violate the defendant’s due process rights when it admitted certain statements he made after invoking Miranda.
A Flathead County jury convicted Del Orrin Crawford in 2024 on multiple felony counts related to the incident, including deliberate homicide and attempted deliberate homicide. Flathead County District Court Judge Dan Wilson later sentenced Crawford to 100 years in the Montana State Prison with no parole eligibility restrictions. Crawford is being held in the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in Mississippi.
Appeal focused on post-Miranda statements and suppression rulings
In an appeal filed last year, Crawford’s appellate defender argued the district court erred when it denied suppression of statements the defendant made after invoking his right to remain silent and requesting counsel. The defense asked the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial on those grounds.
The state’s high court, in an opinion drafted by Justice Beth Baker and joined by Justices Cory Swanson, Katherine Bidegaray, Ingrid Gustafson and Jim Rice, disagreed. The majority concluded the district court did not improperly admit the challenged statements — and even if it had, any error was harmless.
"Even if the district court should not have allowed statements related to the firearm, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Crawford lied about the gun's location," Justice Beth Baker wrote.
What the court said and why it matters
The opinion centers on the interplay between Miranda protections and the admissibility of subsequent statements. The court found that the contested post-Miranda comments did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation that would require a new trial, and emphasized the evidence showing Crawford provided false information about the firearm’s whereabouts.
By ruling any potential error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court left intact both the convictions and Crawford’s 100-year sentence. That outcome effectively ends this direct line of appeal on the suppression issue and sustains the district court’s findings and sentencing choices.
Charges, verdict and sentence
| Charge | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Deliberate homicide | Guilty |
| Attempted deliberate homicide | Guilty |
| Assault with a weapon | Guilty (one count), Acquitted (one count) |
| Evidence tampering | Guilty |
The shooting occurred on Aug. 27, 2022, in the parking lot of a bar in Martin City and resulted in the death of a Hungry Horse woman and serious injuries to her husband. A Flathead County jury returned guilty verdicts in 2024.
Legal implications and next steps
With the Supreme Court’s decision, Crawford’s path for challenging these specific rulings is largely exhausted in the state system. Further relief could theoretically be sought in federal court, but that would require different legal arguments, such as constitutional claims not resolved in state appellate proceedings.
For the Flathead County community, the ruling upholds the criminal justice outcome reached by the jury and the district court’s sentence. It also underscores how Montana’s high court reviews trial-court evidentiary decisions and applies the harmless-error standard when evaluating appeals.
- Defendant: Del Orrin Crawford, 44, of Kila.
- Convictions: Deliberate homicide, attempted deliberate homicide, assault with a weapon, evidence tampering.
- Sentence: 100 years in prison, no parole eligibility restrictions.
The Flathead County case drew attention locally because of the violence’s proximity to community gathering places and the severe sentence imposed. The Supreme Court’s opinion clarifies that, in this instance, admitting the contested statements — even if arguably erroneous — did not undermine the reliability of the verdicts under Montana law.
Legal observers said the decision offers a clear example of how appellate courts balance procedural protections with the broader body of evidence at trial when determining whether an error warrants a new trial. The ruling preserves the jury’s findings and the district court’s punishment, bringing a measure of finality to a case that began in the Flathead Valley three years ago.
