Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Chelsea
Lea RICHARDSON
Ninjacops.com
January 18, 2012
A 27-year-old woman convicted in the 2003
murders of a Mansfield couple felt relief Tuesday when her death
sentence is officially reduced to a life sentence.
Visiting Judge Steve Herod has accepted the
sentencing agreement reached by prosecutors and the defense
attorney of Chelsea Richardson, for the murders of Rick and
Suzanna Wamsley.
In November, the state’s highest criminal court
overturned the death sentence for Richardson. She was condemned by
a Tarrant County jury in 2005 for the deaths of her boyfriend’s
parents in Mansfield.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that
the punishment phase of Richardson’s trial was affected by
misconduct by a former prosecutor who withheld evidence from the
defense.
Richardson and her boyfriend, Andrew Wamsley,
were convicted of capital murder in separate trials. Authorities
said Andrew Wamsley, Richardson and a friend, Susana Toledano,
killed the couple so that Andrew Wamsley could inherit his
parents’ $1.56 million estate.
Richardson was the only one to receive the
death penalty. Under the new sentence, she must serve 40 years
before she is eligible for parole, though she will get credit for
time served.
Relatives of Richardson and the Wamsleys
attended Tuesday’s hearing. Richardson’s mother, Celia Richardson,
said afterward that she still believed her daughter to be
innocent. She said she felt that her daughter was being “swept
under the carpet” after an error-filled police investigation and
trial.
Meanwhile, Rick and Suzanna Wamsley’s family
members released a statement through a district attorney’s office
spokeswoman, saying they supported the plea bargain because the
alternative would have meant returning to court for a new penalty
phase, and reliving the painful details of the crime once again.
Family members said they plan to “fight
paroles” for all the criminals involved. The hearing lasted about
five minutes.
By Dianna Hunt - Star-Telegram.com
November 3, 2011
FORT WORTH -- The state's highest criminal
court on Wednesday overturned the death sentence for Chelsea Lee
Richardson, condemned by a Tarrant County jury in 2005 for the
deaths of her boyfriend's parents in Mansfield.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that
the punishment phase of Richardson's trial was affected by
misconduct by then-prosecutor Mike Parrish, who withheld evidence
from the defense.
Richardson's attorney, Robert Ford, said a deal
has been reached with the Tarrant County district attorney's
office for Richardson, now 27, to receive a life sentence.
Because she is subject to the penal code that
was in place in 2005 when she was convicted, she would be eligible
for parole after serving 40 years.
"I hope it sends the message that this kind of
cheating won't be tolerated," Ford said. "It probably cost Tarrant
County and the state courts in the millions [of dollars] when you
consider the cost of all the trials, appeals, everything."
Tarrant County District Attorney Joe Shannon,
who took office after Parrish retired in 2008, said the court's
ruling affirms an agreement reached by both sides in June.
"As I have often stated, this office will not
be a party to the infliction of death as a punishment when there
is even an appearance of impropriety on the part of a prosecutor
who formerly worked in this office," Shannon said in a written
statement.
"If the death penalty is to be used, it must be
obtained legally, fairly and honestly and without the hint of
possible injustice."
During the appeals process, Parrish testified
that he had received a private reprimand from the State Bar of
Texas in another case, Ford said.
Richardson and her boyfriend, Andrew Wamsley,
were convicted of capital murder in separate trials in the deaths
of Rick and Suzanna Wamsley of Mansfield in December 2003.
Authorities said Andrew Wamsley, Richardson and a friend, Susana
Toledano, killed the couple so that Andrew Wamsley could inherit
his parents' $1.56 million estate.
Rick Wamsley, 46, was shot in the head and back
and stabbed 21 times. Suzanna Wamsley, 45, died from a gunshot
wound to the head and was stabbed 18 times after she died.
Richardson was the first woman in Tarrant
County to receive the death sentence. Andrew Wamsley got a life
sentence.
Toledano -- who testified that she did most of
the shooting and stabbing with coaching from Richardson -- struck
a deal with prosecutors and testified against the others in
exchange for a life sentence.
Wamsley and Richardson turned down prosecutors'
plea offers for life sentences and took their chances with juries.
Ford has contended that Parrish's misconduct
was failing to tell Richardson's attorneys, Warren St. John and
Terry Barlow, about 11 pages of notes taken by a psychologist who
interviewed Toledano at Parrish's request. Ford argued that some
of Toledano's statements to the psychologist could have been used
to lessen Richardson's culpability.
After a number of hearings over the years, the
district attorney's office agreed with Ford that the notes could
have been used to attack the state's theory that Richardson was
the mastermind of the killings and should have been turned over.
Ford said Richardson's family has mixed
feelings about the result.
"They wanted her to walk away completely free,
and that just wasn't a possibility," he said. "I know that they're
relieved she's going to move off Death Row."
Chelsea Richardson recently became the first
female sentenced to death in Tarrant County. Richardson, her
boyfriend Andrew Wamsley, and her best friend Susana Toledano were
nineteen years old when they murdered Andrew’s parents in their
upscale Mansfield home after months of planning and failed
attempts.
“The crime was planned for two months [and the]
motive was pure greed,” said Tarrant County prosecutor Mike
Parrish. “They planned this double murder to get the proceeds of a
one million dollar insurance policy,” he said.
Andrew and Chelsea began dating in January
2003. Around October 2003, they decided that Andrew’s parents,
Rick and Suzanna Wamsley, and his sister, Sarah, had to die so
that Andrew could inherit the family’s estate.
Chelsea recruited Susana to help. Susana had
moved in with Chelsea because of problems with her mother, and
Susana had grown very dependent on Chelsea. Chelsea knew that she
could convince Susana to do anything for her, including murder
Andrew’s parents. In order to convince Susana to participate in
the killings, Chelsea held it over Susana’s head that Susana lived
rent-free with Chelsea’s family and that Chelsea or Andrew
provided Susana’s only means of transportation to work.
Chelsea, Andrew, and Susana frequented an IHOP
restaurant in south Arlington, where they often discussed their
plans to kill Andrew’s family. They befriended the restaurant’s
manager, twenty-four-year-old Hilario Cardenas, and convinced him
with promises of money to join their scheme.
Over time, the foursome discussed various ways
to murder the Wamsleys. Their plans included having Hilario cut
the brake lines on the family’s vehicle and having him accompany
Andrew and Susana to the Wamsleys’ house and stage a robbery after
murdering Andrew’s parents.
At some point, Chelsea convinced Hilario to get
a gun for the group. Chelsea, Andrew, and Susana went target
shooting at a nearby pond to prepare for the killings.
The afternoon of November 9, 2003, Chelsea
waited at home to establish an alibi while Andrew and Susana
located his parents and sister in the family’s Jeep Laredo on I-35
in Burleson. As Andrew drove, Susana sat in the back seat and shot
at the gas tank of the Wamsleys’ vehicle in hopes that it would
explode. A bullet hit the Jeep, but Susana was unable to shoot the
gas tank. Andrew’s family was uninjured. Although the police were
called, they uncovered no leads.
After that, the plan changed to killing the
Wamsleys at home. Because Susana had failed to kill the Wamsleys
by shooting their gas tank, Chelsea convinced her that she had to
make things right by acting as the shooter.
Late one night, Chelsea, Andrew, and Susana
entered the Wamsleys’ house so that Susana could shoot Andrew’s
sleeping parents. However, Susana decided that she could not go
through with the plan, and the group snuck out of the house.
On December 9, 2003, Susana received a text
message from Chelsea that they had to murder the Wamsleys that
night. Susana accompanied Andrew and Chelsea to the Wamsleys’
house in the early morning hours of December 10. After the trio
entered the house, Chelsea coached Susana about how to carry out
the shootings.
After Chelsea’s pep talk, Susana shot Andrew’s
mother in the head as she slept on the living room sofa. She died
instantly.
Next, Susana went to the master bedroom, where
Mr. Wamsley had awakened to the sound of the gunshot. He charged
toward Susana as she fired into the bedroom. A bullet struck him
above the eyebrow. Mr. Wamsley managed to tackle Susana, who hit
the floor and lost the gun. Chelsea then picked up the weapon and
shot Mr. Wamsley in the back to make him let go of Susana.
When there were no more bullets in the gun,
Chelsea retrieved two knives from the kitchen. Meanwhile, Mr.
Wamsley and Andrew struggled into the entryway as Mr. Wamsley
pleaded with his son and asked why this was happening. Chelsea
lied that she was pregnant and threatened to shoot Mr. Wamsley if
he did not shut up.
As the struggle continued, Chelsea ordered
Susana to return to the living room and stab Mrs. Wamsley to
ensure that she was dead. When Susana returned to the entry way,
Mr. Wamsley was face down on the floor, and Susana stabbed him in
the back.
When Mr. and Mrs. Wamsley were dead, Chelsea,
Andrew, and Susana fled. They threw their outer clothing into a
trash bag that Chelsea had brought along. Then, they went to
Chelsea’s house and cleaned up. Later in the morning, they cleaned
and detailed Andrew’s car. Susana followed her usual routine of
going to school and then to work.
At about 11:40 p.m. that night, an open line
911 call originated from the Wamsleys’ house. When the Mansfield
police arrived a few minutes later, no one responded from inside.
They noticed that the garage door and the door leading from the
garage into the kitchen were open.
Upon entering the house, the police discovered
the bodies of Mr. and Mrs. Wamsley. “It was an incredibly brutal
and frightening crime scene,” said Tarrant County prosecutor Page
Simpson. Mr. Wamsley had been shot in the head and stabbed over
thirty times in the chest and back, while Mrs. Wamsley had been
shot in the head and stabbed more than thirteen times in the
chest. An autopsy revealed several hairs clutched in Mr. Wamsley’s
hand, but no other physical evidence was found.
When Chelsea, Andrew, and Susana were called
before the grand jury, they lied about where they had been when
the Wamsleys were murdered. Chelsea convinced Jeremy Lavender, a
mentally challenged nineteen-year-old, to provide her and her
friends with a false alibi. Chelsea had befriended Lavender and
made him think that he was her boyfriend. When Jeremy’s story
failed to withstand police scrutiny, he admitted providing the
false alibi at Chelsea’s request.
Authorities went months without solid evidence
in the case. They finally got a break in March 2004 when tests
matched Susana’s DNA to the hair found clasped in Mr. Wamsley’s
hand.
As a result of the DNA match, police arrested
Susana in Illinois on April 5, 2004. Still under Chelsea’s
influence, and following Chelsea’s instructions, Susana
immediately implicated only herself and Hilario in the murders.
She protected Chelsea and Andrew.
As a result of Susana’s statements, police
arrested Hilario in Arlington the next day. He then implicated
Andrew and Chelsea in the murders, and police arrested the couple.
While in jail awaiting trial, Chelsea discussed
her involvement in the Wamsleys’ murders with several inmates and
attempted to convince them to testify on her behalf. She began
calling one inmate “mom” and passed her a note the day after the
trial began instructing her to memorize Chelsea’s false alibi and
to rewrite it in her own words.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury
convicted Chelsea of capital murder in less than three hours.
At the punishment stage, the State sought the
death penalty. The evidence included a letter from Chelsea to
Andrew written the day after they had shot at the family’s vehicle
in Burleson. The letter exposed Chelsea’s manipulation of Andrew
to believe that his family did not love or trust him and that she
was the only person on whom he could rely. Based on the brutal,
premeditated murders of the Wamsleys out of greed, as well as
evidence of Chelsea’s manipulation of others and of the danger she
posed to society, the jury took just over two hours to sentence
Chelsea to death.
Andrew’s trial for capital murder is currently
scheduled to begin in the fall of 2005. Susana, who entered a plea
bargain with the State in exchange for her truthful testimony at
trial, is currently serving a life sentence for murder. Susana
will not be eligible for parole until she serves thirty years in
prison. Charges are pending against Hilario for his role in
conspiring to murder the Wamsleys.
To find Richardson guilty, the jury had to
believe that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that
Richardson intentionally caused the Wamsleys' deaths during the
same criminal transaction.
In deciding whether the evidence is legally
sufficient to sustain a conviction, we must determine "whether,
after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."
In deciding whether the evidence is factually
sufficient to sustain a conviction, we will assume that the
evidence is legally sufficient, but we will view "all of the
evidence in the record without the prism of 'in the light most
favorable to the verdict.'"
Regarding legal sufficiency, viewed in the
light most favorable to the verdict, the testimony and evidence at
trial showed that Richardson participated in the planning of the
murders, aided in the two failed attempts to murder the Wamsleys,
and was present during, encouraged, and participated in the final
attempt during which the Wamsleys were killed. Toledano testified
that she heard Richardson planning the murders with Andrew and
that Richardson went with her and Andrew on the night that the
Wamsleys were killed. Toledano further testified that Richardson
encouraged her to kill the Wamsleys while in the Wamsleys' home
and that Richardson physically shoved her into the living room to
get her going. Her testimony also indicated that Richardson shot
Rick Wamsley in the back and stabbed him. Corroborating Toledano's
testimony, two witnesses who had been incarcerated at the county
jail with Richardson testified that Richardson admitted to
participating in the murders and to shooting Rick Wamsley.
Testimony also revealed that Richardson asked another friend, who
was mentally challenged, to provide her with an alibi for the
night of the murders and that she even convinced this same friend
to lie to the grand jury investigating the murders.
The jury is the sole judge of the weight and
credibility of witness testimony,
Regarding factual sufficiency, Richardson
argues that most of the evidence indicating that she participated
in the murders came from the testimony of Toledano, an accomplice
who struck a deal with the State for a life sentence in exchange
for her testimony. She claims that Toledano's testimony is not
reliable because of the varying version of events that Toledano
had given to the police, to the grand jury, and to the jury at
trial. As a result, she contends that we can have no confidence in
the jury's verdict. Richardson also urges us to require
independent corroboration of the jailhouse-informant testimony
like that required of accomplice-witness testimony.
As we indicated above, the jury is the sole
judge of the weight and credibility of witness testimony, and
reconciliation of conflicts in the evidence is within its
exclusive province.
Erroneously Admitted Testimony
In point of error six, Richardson contends that
the trial judge erred in overruling her objections to a portion of
Kathryn Norton's testimony. Norton, who had been housed in the
Tarrant County Jail with Richardson, testified how she was able to
contact the District Attorney's Office through her father to
reveal admissions Richardson had made implicating herself in the
murders. On direct examination, the following exchange took place
between Norton and the prosecutor:
[Prosecutor]: Were you revoked on that
probation?
[Norton]: Yes.
[Prosecutor]: And where were you sent?
[Norton]: I was sent to Tarrant County.
[Prosecutor]: Then where were you sent after
that?
[Norton]: To Dawson State Jail.
[Prosecutor]: At that time when you were in
Dawson State Jail, did you make contact with the District
Attorney's office?
[Norton]: My dad actually did.
[Prosecutor]: And why did your dad?
[Norton]: He told my lawyer about what --
[Defense Counsel]: Objection as to hearsay as
to what her father said.
[Trial Court]: Well, I'm gonna overrule that
particular objection at this time.
[Defense Counsel]: I make a 403 objection to
her statement then, Judge.
[Trial Court]: Overruled.
[Defense Counsel]: What her father says, it's a
403 issue.
[Trial Court]: Overruled. The State may
continue to ask the questions.
[Prosecutor]: You can answer that question.
[Norton]: My dad told my lawyer that -- what
happened to me in jail and that I was with somebody who did
something bad, and my lawyer went to you guys.
[Prosecutor]: Did your dad do that because he
received something in the mail?
[Norton]: Yes.
[Prosecutor]: What did he receive in the mail?
[Norton]: He received a letter from Chelsea.
In arguing her sixth point of error, Richardson
does not attack the heart of Norton's testimony regarding the
admissions Richardson had made. Rather, Richardson only argues
that some of Norton's testimony concerning how she was able to
contact the District Attorney's Office was introduced in violation
of Rule 802 (hearsay) and Rule 403 (exclusion of relevant
evidence) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Even assuming that the
challenged statement was inadmissible and was erroneously
admitted, such a breach of the evidentiary rules does not raise
constitutional concerns and must be disregarded unless the
erroneously admitted testimony affected Richardson's substantial
rights.
Substantial rights are not affected by the
erroneous admission of evidence "if the appellate court, after
examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error
did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect."
A review of the record as a whole reveals that
the challenged bit of Norton's testimony can be characterized only
as insignificant and non-contributing to Richardson's conviction
and death sentence. It did not concern the substance of Norton's
testimony regarding Richardson's admissions and was never
referenced by the State at any other time in the trial. Indeed, it
occupies only one sentence of the thirty-two-volume reporter's
record taken during the six-day trial. The only portion that may
even be viewed as potentially damaging is the phrase intimating
that Richardson was "somebody who did something bad." But
considering this statement against the entirety of the record,
including fellow conspirator Toledano's testimony detailing
Richardson's planning, involvement, and execution of the murders,
testimony that Richardson had twice admitted to involvement in the
murders, testimony that Richardson had admitted to shooting and
stabbing Rick Wamsley, testimony that Richardson asked a mentally
challenged friend to provide her with an alibi for the night of
the murders, and testimony that Richardson also convinced this
same friend to lie to the grand jury investigating the murders, we
cannot conclude that the challenged testimony, even assuming it
was erroneously admitted, affected Richardson's substantial
rights. Richardson's sixth point is therefore overruled.
Constitutionality of Death-Penalty Scheme
In point of error four, Richardson contends
that the trial judge erred in failing to grant her motion to
preclude the imposition of the death penalty. Citing to Ring
v. Arizona
In point of error five, Richardson contends
that the trial judge erred in overruling her motion to instruct
the jury that the State has the burden of proof to demonstrate
beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an absence of sufficient
mitigation evidence to warrant a life rather than death sentence.
She alleged that such an instruction is required under the Fifth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. We have already rejected this same argument.
In point of error seven, Richardson maintains
that the trial judge erred in denying her motion to declare the
Texas death-penalty statute unconstitutional under the Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Richardson argued in her motion
that the term "probability" as used in the future-dangerousness
special issue requires the jury to engage in a "vague and
indefinite inquiry" utilizing a statute that is "incapable of
interpretation by reasonable men." Richardson further complained
that the statute "provides no guidelines or other statutory
limitations" concerning whether there is a probability that she
would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a
continuing threat to society.
Richardson contends in point of error eight
that the use of a chemical substance pancuronium bromide to carry
out her execution violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition
against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.
Richardson's execution is not imminent, however, and the method in
which the lethal injection is currently administered is not
determinative of the way it will be administered at the moment of
Richardson's execution. Thus, this claim is not ripe for review.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
DELIVERED: January 23, 2008
DO NOT PUBLISH
1. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §
19.03(a)(7) (Vernon 2003).
2. Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 37.071 § 2(g) (Vernon Supp. 2003).