Judge Won't Dismiss Case After Duck Hunter Claims Friend's Death Was Accident

The question of whether a Wyoming college student recklessly shot and killed his friend during a winter duck hunt is too big for just one judge to decide and should go to a jury instead, a judge ruled Monday.

Gaige Zook, 20, was charged with involuntary manslaughter in April for the Jan. 20 death of his friend, Maurizio Dadin, 19. The two men and a third friend were hunting in a duck blind off the shore of the North Platte River.

Zook’s shotgun misfired, and when Zook later grabbed it to inspect it, it fired and hit Dadin, killing him, court documents say.

The case affidavit refers to Dadin as Maurizio Justiniano, which case parties now say was a misunderstanding: the man’s last name was Dadin.

Zook filed an Oct. 16 motion via his attorney Jason Tangeman asking Goshen County District Court Judge Edward Buchanan to dismiss the case against him. The motion contends that Zook couldn’t have acted “recklessly” in that split second, that case evidence indicates he was only reaching for the gun to put it on safety, and that Dadin may have moved unexpectedly into the line of fire.

A Wyoming jury can’t convict someone of involuntary manslaughter without also deciding that he acted recklessly.

Goshen County Attorney Eric Boyer countered in a Nov. 12 hearing, saying Dadin died of the blast, so the gun must have been pointed at him at some point. Every Wyoming sportsman knows not to point a gun toward anyone, ever, Boyer added.

Buchanan lent that statement some credence in his Monday order by pointing to a Utah Supreme Court precedent, which says reckless manslaughter (a felony) is different from criminally negligent homicide (a misdemeanor) in that for manslaughter, the defendant knew better than to do what he’s accused of doing. Whereas in negligent homicide, the defendant should have known better, but didn’t.

Just One Judge

Buchanan dismissed Zook’s request for dismissal, saying the question of whether Zook acted recklessly is integral to the charge he faces — a question of guilt or innocence — and is too big of a question for a judge to dispose of on his own.

It’s a question for a jury, Buchanan wrote.

Wyoming honors “the sanctity of the jury’s role as fact-finder,” the judge wrote.

“This court would be improperly invading the province of the jury were it to conduct a ‘mini-trial’ prior to the actual trial to answer those questions,” Buchanan added. “This, it cannot do.”  

Buchanan also denied Zook’s request for a bill of particulars, or more specific listing of the charge and its basis, saying the evidentiary affidavit explains the prosecutor’s application of the charge well enough.

Going Forward

Going forward, Zook can advance to a trial and try to convince a jury that he did not behave recklessly, or that Dadin’s death wasn’t the result of criminal conduct by him.

Or, he can agree to any variation of a not-guilty plea and accept a plea agreement from Boyer.

Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.