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.
Walter
E. BARTON
Case Facts:
On the morning of October 9, 1991, Carol Horton, a resident of Riverview
Mobile Home Park in Ozark, Missouri, visited the trailer of Gladys
Kuehler at approximately 9:00 a.m.
Kuehler, eighty-one
years of age, served as manager of the park. Kuehler was unable to move
about without the assistance of a cane. Horton assisted Kuehler with
some tasks and last saw Kuehler at 11:04 a.m.
The owners of the
trailer park, Bill and Dorothy Pickering, visited Kuehler's trailer some
time between 1:15 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. to collect rent receipts. Ted and
Sharon Bartlett, former residents of the trailer park, arrived for a
visit with Kuehler between 2:00 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. and remained until
about 2:45 p.m. Kuehler told the Bartletts that she was going to lie
down because she was not feeling well.
Appellant was visiting
Horton in her trailer on October 9, 1991. At approximately 2:00 p.m.,
appellant left her trailer. Appellant said that he was going to
Kuehler's trailer to borrow twenty dollars.
He returned to Horton's
trailer ten or fifteen minutes later saying that Kuehler told him to
return later and that she would write him a check. Appellant left
Horton's trailer again at approximately 3:00 p.m. He told Horton that he
was going to Kuehler's trailer.
At approximately 3:15
p.m., Bill Pickering telephoned Kuehler's trailer. A man, later
determined to be appellant, answered the telephone and stated that
Kuehler was in the bathroom and could not come to the telephone. Debra
Selvidge, Kuehler's granddaughter, spoke with Kuehler on the telephone
some time after 3:00 p.m. She telephoned Kuehler again between 3:30 p.m.
and 4:00 p.m., but received no answer.
Appellant returned to
Horton's trailer at approximately 4:00 p.m. Appellant was acting "totally
different," seemed to be in a hurry, and asked Horton if he could use
her restroom. Horton detected a smell of blood on Barton's person. After
noticing that appellant had been in the bathroom for a long time, Horton
went to check on him. Appellant was washing his hands. He said that he
had been working on a car.
At approximately 4:15
p.m., Horton told appellant that she was going to Kuehler's trailer.
Appellant told her not to go because Kuehler had told him she was going
to lie down and take a nap. Appellant left Horton's trailer. Horton then
went to check on Kuehler. She received no response when she knocked on
Kuehler's door. She tried to open the door, but it was locked. She
returned to Kuehler's trailer again at 6:00 p.m. and again received no
response.
Debra Selvidge, who had
been attempting to reach Kuehler by telephone, drove to Kuehler's
trailer. She knocked on the door but received no answer. At
approximately 7:30 p.m., Selvidge went to Horton's trailer and expressed
her concern. Horton, Horton's son, and Selvidge went to Kuehler's
trailer. They knocked and received no response.
On their way to make
telephone calls, they saw a police officer, Officer Hodges, who agreed
to meet them at Kuehler's trailer after he answered another call. The
two women saw appellant at another trailer in the trailer park. Selvidge
asked him if he would go with them back to Kuehler's trailer. Appellant
agreed to go but said that he would go later.
The women drove to
Kuehler's trailer. After a time, appellant arrived. The women knocked on
Kuehler's door. Appellant walked over to the side of the trailer, where
he began to pound on the wall of the trailer under the bedroom window
near where Kuehler's body was later found.
Officer Hodges arrived
and unsuccessfully attempted to open the door. He radioed a dispatcher
to send a locksmith. The officer left on another call. When the
locksmith arrived, he opened the door.
After the locksmith
opened the door, Selvidge and Horton, followed by appellant, entered the
trailer. After calling out for Kuehler and receiving no answer, Selvidge
started down the hallway toward Kuehler's bedroom, followed by Horton
and appellant. Appellant told Selvidge not to go down the hall. Selvidge
did, however, and noticed Kuehler's clothing on the floor in front of
the toilet in the bathroom. Selvidge also noticed that the lid of the
toilet had been left up.
Selvidge discovered
Kuehler's body in the bedroom. Kuehler's partially nude body lay on the
floor between the bed and the wall; there was a large amount of dried
blood on the bed and the floor. Officer Hodges returned to Kuehler's
trailer. Selvidge directed him to Kuehler's bedroom where he saw her
body between the bed and the wall.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Walter Barton,
Appellant.
Case Number: 80931
Handdown Date: 08/03/99
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Benton County, Hon. Theodore
Scott
Opinion Summary:
Walter E. Barton killed 81-year-old Gladys Kuehler,
who was unable to move without the assistance of a cane, by stabbing and
slashing her dozens of times in the chest, back, neck, arms, and eye,
and otherwise assaulting her. A jury found Barton guilty of first degree
murder and recommended the death sentence, which the court imposed.
Barton appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Court en banc holds:
1. The trial court did not err in refusing to allow
Barton to ask prospective jurors where they obtained information about
the case. The source of the jurors' information is not essential to
determining whether they are biased or prejudiced. The relevant question
is whether the potential juror can set aside any preconceived opinions
about the trial or the defendant and make an impartial determination of
the defendant's guilt or innocence. The trial court did not prevent
Barton from determining whether the venirepersons exposed to pretrial
publicity could be fair, impartial, and unbiased. The trial court and
counsel thoroughly inquired into the topic of pretrial publicity,
questioning jurors who had been exposed to pretrial publicity in small
groups. Furthermore, Barton failed to establish a real probability that
he was injured by the court's limit on questioning.
2. A substantial number of venirepersons had heard
about the case before trial, including six of twelve who sat on the jury.
The court, having observed each venireperson's demeanor while counsel
asked questions regarding pretrial publicity, evaluated whether each
person was affected and acted accordingly, striking and excusing many.
The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Barton's request for
a continuance and change of venue.
3. The court did not err in admitting an inmate's
testimony that Barton said he was going to have his cellmate killed
because the cellmate repeated Barton's admissions of guilt. Evidence of
uncharged crimes, wrongs, or acts of the defendant is admissible if
logically relevant, in that it has some legitimate tendency to establish
directly the accused's guilt of the charges for which he is on trial,
and if the evidence is legally relevant, in that its probative value
outweighs its prejudicial effect. The testimony meets each requirement.
4. The prosecutor's statement that the state observed
every "legal nicety" does not demand the scrutiny required when a
prosecutor refers to a defendant's refusal to testify; the prosecutor's
comment does not constitute an improper reference to a defendant's
exercise of his constitutional rights. The prosecutor explained the term
as meaning that the law had been observed and that Barton had a fair
trial. The statement, made in the context of arguing what penalty should
be imposed, does not exceed the bounds of proper argument.
5. The death sentence passes this Court's independent, statutory
proportionality review.
Price, C.J., Limbaugh and Benton, JJ., and Dowd,
Sp.J., concur.
Dissenting Opinion Summary:
The dissenting author would hold that the risk that
the trial process was tainted with extraneous evidence was sufficiently
great that it was an abuse of discretion not to allow, at the very least,
individual questioning of prospective jurors to ascertain the extent of
their knowledge of matters that properly were not evidence in the case
so as to ensure a panel as free as possible of factual taint and
prejudging disposition. The dissenting author states that such
questioning would also have provided a basis for soundly determining
whether the defense motion for a change of venue or continuance should
have been granted.
Wolff, J. dissents in separate opinion filed.
White, J. concurs in opinion of Wolff, J.
Opinion Author: Ann K. Covington, Judge
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Price, C.J., Limbaugh
and Benton, JJ., and Dowd, Sp.J., concur; Wolff, J., dissents in
separate opinion filed; White, J., concurs in opinion of Wolff, J.
Holstein, J., not participating.
Opinion:
Appellant, Walter E. Barton, was convicted of the
class A felony of murder in the first degree, in violation of 565.020,
RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to death. Appellant appeals his
first degree murder conviction and his sentence. Affirmed. (FN1)
The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to
the verdict. State v. Kreutzer , 928 S.W.2d 854, 859 (Mo. banc
1996). On the morning of October 9, 1991, Carol Horton, a resident of
Riverview Mobile Home Park in Ozark, Missouri, visited the trailer of
Gladys Kuehler at approximately 9:00 a.m. Kuehler, eighty-one years of
age, served as manager of the park. Kuehler was unable to move about
without the assistance of a cane. Horton assisted Kuehler with some
tasks and last saw Kuehler at 11:04 a.m.
The owners of the trailer park, Bill and Dorothy
Pickering, visited Kuehler's trailer some time between 1:15 p.m. and
2:00 p.m. to collect rent receipts. Ted and Sharon Bartlett, former
residents of the trailer park, arrived for a visit with Kuehler between
2:00 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. and remained until about 2:45 p.m. Kuehler told
the Bartletts that she was going to lie down because she was not feeling
well.
Appellant was visiting Horton in her trailer on
October 9, 1991. At approximately 2:00 p.m., appellant left her trailer.
Appellant said that he was going to Kuehler's trailer to borrow twenty
dollars. He returned to Horton's trailer ten or fifteen minutes later
saying that Kuehler told him to return later and that she would write
him a check. Appellant left Horton's trailer again at approximately 3:00
p.m. He told Horton that he was going to Kuehler's trailer.
At approximately 3:15 p.m., Bill Pickering telephoned
Kuehler's trailer. A man, later determined to be appellant, answered the
telephone and stated that Kuehler was in the bathroom and could not come
to the telephone. Debra Selvidge, Kuehler's granddaughter, spoke with
Kuehler on the telephone some time after 3:00 p.m. She telephoned
Kuehler again between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., but received no answer.
Appellant returned to Horton's trailer at
approximately 4:00 p.m. Appellant was acting "totally different," seemed
to be in a hurry, and asked Horton if he could use her restroom. Horton
detected a smell of blood on Barton's person. After noticing that
appellant had been in the bathroom for a long time, Horton went to check
on him. Appellant was washing his hands. He said that he had been
working on a car.
At approximately 4:15 p.m., Horton told appellant
that she was going to Kuehler's trailer. Appellant told her not to go
because Kuehler had told him she was going to lie down and take a nap.
Appellant left Horton's trailer. Horton then went to check on Kuehler.
She received no response when she knocked on Kuehler's door. She tried
to open the door, but it was locked. She returned to Kuehler's trailer
again at 6:00 p.m. and again received no response.
Debra Selvidge, who had been attempting to reach
Kuehler by telephone, drove to Kuehler's trailer. She knocked on the
door but received no answer. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Selvidge went
to Horton's trailer and expressed her concern. Horton, Horton's son, and
Selvidge went to Kuehler's trailer. They knocked and received no
response. On their way to make telephone calls, they saw a police
officer, Officer Hodges, who agreed to meet them at Kuehler's trailer
after he answered another call. The two women saw appellant at another
trailer in the trailer park. Selvidge asked him if he would go with them
back to Kuehler's trailer. Appellant agreed to go but said that he would
go later.
The women drove to Kuehler's trailer. After a time,
appellant arrived. The women knocked on Kuehler's door. Appellant walked
over to the side of the trailer, where he began to pound on the wall of
the trailer under the bedroom window near where Kuehler's body was later
found.
Officer Hodges arrived and unsuccessfully attempted
to open the door. He radioed a dispatcher to send a locksmith. The
officer left on another call. When the locksmith arrived, he opened the
door. After the locksmith opened the door, Selvidge and Horton, followed
by appellant, entered the trailer. After calling out for Kuehler and
receiving no answer, Selvidge started down the hallway toward Kuehler's
bedroom, followed by Horton and appellant. Appellant told Selvidge not
to go down the hall. Selvidge did, however, and noticed Kuehler's
clothing on the floor in front of the toilet in the bathroom. Selvidge
also noticed that the lid of the toilet had been left up. Selvidge
discovered Kuehler's body in the bedroom. Kuehler's partially nude body
lay on the floor between the bed and the wall; there was a large amount
of dried blood on the bed and the floor. Officer Hodges returned to
Kuehler's trailer. Selvidge directed him to Kuehler's bedroom where he
saw her body between the bed and the wall.
Appellant did not appear to be surprised at the time
the body was discovered and showed no emotion whatsoever. Officer Hodges
asked appellant when he had last seen Kuehler. Appellant said that he
had last seen Kuehler at her trailer between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. He
had gone there to borrow money. Kuehler had agreed to lend him some
money, but could not write the check at that time because she did not
feel well and was going to take a nap. Appellant said that he had
returned later, but Kuehler did not answer the door. Appellant said that
he had never received the check.
Sergeant Jack Merritt of the Missouri Highway Patrol
assisted with the investigation. He discovered at the scene a pocketbook
and checkbook on a vanity across from Kuehler's bed. Although check
number 6027 was missing from the checkbook, there was no entry in the
check register for that check. All other checks written prior to that
appeared to have been entered in the check register. The first remaining
check in the checkbook was number 6028.
Sergeant Merritt was aware that Bill Pickering had
telephoned Kuehler's trailer at 3:15 p.m. and that a man had answered at
that time. Merritt asked appellant what time he answered the telephone
in the trailer. Appellant admitted to having answered Pickering's call.
Sergeant Merritt then asked appellant to go to the sheriff's department,
and appellant agreed. Upon arrival, Sergeant Merritt advised appellant
of his Miranda rights.
While Sergeant Merritt fingerprinted appellant,
Officer Hodges noticed what appeared to be a bloodstain on the elbow of
appellant's shirt and what appeared to be a bloody handprint on the
shoulder of his shirt. The officers later noticed some blood on
appellant's jeans. Officer Hodges recalled that he might have noticed
some blood on appellant's boots. Officer Hodges asked appellant how the
blood got on his clothing. Appellant replied that he had pulled Selvidge
away from her grandmother's body and must have gotten it then. Selvidge
confirmed that appellant had reached around her, pulled her away from
Kuehler's body, and taken her out of the bedroom. Selvidge did not,
however, get close enough to the victim to get into the blood.
Forensic testing confirmed small amounts of human
blood on appellant's boots and jeans in addition to the blood found on
his shirt. The amount of human blood on the boot was insufficient to
compare with known samples. The blood on appellant's jeans had been
diluted so that there was an insufficient amount to make a comparison.
The serologist was able, however, to make a comparison of the blood
stains found on appellant's shirt. The blood found on appellant's shirt
could have come from Kuehler but not from appellant. DNA analysis of the
blood on appellant's shirt showed that only one person out of 5.5
billion persons would have similar blood characteristics.
The blood found on appellant's shirt was determined
to be very tiny blood drops, "high velocity blood." The drops were
caused by a blow, an impact applied to a wound or to a pool of blood.
Simply coming into contact with something bloody would not have produced
the very tiny spots of blood that were seen on appellant's shirt.
Dr. James Spindler, a pathologist, conducted the
autopsy of Gladys Kuehler. Kuehler's shirt was saturated with blood.
There were thirty-four cuts in the front and back of her shirt.
Kuehler's brassiere had eleven cuts. Kuehler sustained five blunt-force
injuries to her head, consistent with a heavy cylindrical object such as
a baseball bat. Kuehler had been stabbed and slashed several times in
the eye area. Her right eye had been slashed through, and she sustained
a stab wound to her left eyelid. The right eye slash was inflicted
before Kuehler's death. Kuehler sustained at least four stab/slash
wounds to her neck, the most serious of which severed her jugular vein
and cut down to the bone in the back of her neck. Because of the
multiple stab wounds to the chest, Kuehler's left lung was deflated and
she suffered extensive bleeding into the chest cavity. Dr. Spindler
concluded that Kuehler's breasts were being held down while she was
being stabbed in the chest. Four large, deep slashes had been cut into
Kuehler's abdominal area, forming two X's. One of the X-wounds was so
deep that Kuehler's intestines protruded from the wound. There were four
defensive wounds to the back of Kuehler's hands and arms. Examination of
Kuehler's genitalia revealed "a lot" of bruising and tears in the
vaginal area. The injuries were not caused by a knife, but by some blunt
instrument or a penis. There was an absence of sperm.
Dr. Spindler concluded that Kuehler died from a
combination of blood loss, shock, and stab wounds to the throat and
chest, with lung collapse and hemorrhage of the lung spaces being
contributing factors.
A young woman picking up trash with her church group
on October 12, 1991, found a check, number 6027, in the amount of fifty
dollars written on Kuehler's account and made payable to appellant. In
the opinion of a criminologist with the Missouri Highway Patrol, Kuehler
wrote the check.
While being held in the Christian County Jail,
appellant told his cellmate, Larry Arnold, that he killed an old lady by
cutting her throat, stabbing her, and cutting an "X" on her body.
Appellant said that he had thrown the murder weapon into a river.
Ricky Ellis, an inmate housed two or three cells away
from appellant in the Christian County Jail, overheard appellant say
that he was going to have Arnold killed because appellant had discussed
a murder with Arnold, and Arnold had talked about it.
Katherine Allen, a trustee in the Lawrence County
jail, was incarcerated with appellant. During an argument with Allen
appellant told Allen that "he would kill me like he did her." Craig
Dorser, another inmate in the Lawrence County jail, testified that
appellant stated that he was in jail for murdering an old lady.
Appellant said that he stabbed her forty-seven times, getting blood on
his face and clothing and shoes. Appellant said he licked the blood off
his face and "liked it."
At the close of all the evidence and after the
instructions and arguments of counsel, the jury found appellant guilty
as charged. In the penalty phase, the state presented evidence of two
prior assaults committed by appellant. In 1976, appellant was convicted
of assault with intent to kill committed against a female convenience
store clerk. Appellant was paroled in February of 1984. In March of that
year, appellant attacked, beat, and choked another female convenience
store clerk in West Plains. The clerk screamed, and appellant threatened
to kill her if she was not quiet. The attack was interrupted and
appellant fled. The clerk sustained a black eye, a swollen jaw, and neck
injuries as a result of appellant's attack. Appellant was convicted of
assault in the first degree. During the penalty phase, appellant
presented the testimony of six witnesses on his behalf.
At the close of the penalty phase and after the
instructions and arguments of counsel, the jury found the following
statutory aggravating circumstances: that appellant was convicted of
assault with intent to kill on August 16, 1976, in the Circuit Court of
Laclede County; that appellant was convicted of assault in the first
degree on June 18, 1984, in the Circuit Court of Howell County; and that
the murder of Gladys Kuehler involved depravity of mind and was
outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhumane because appellant,
while killing Gladys Kuehler or immediately thereafter, purposely
mutilated or grossly disfigured the her body by acts beyond that
necessary to cause her death. The jury recommended a sentence of death.
On June 10, 1998, the court imposed sentence in
accordance with the recommendation of the jury. Appellant brings this
appeal from his conviction and sentence of death.
Appellant alleges that the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his request during voir dire to ask the venire
panel specific questions regarding pretrial publicity. Appellant does
not allege that any of the persons who served on his jury held opinions
that would have prevented them from impartially determining his guilt or
innocence. Rather, appellant claims that he was denied the opportunity
to determine what prejudices or biases these jurors might have as a
result of the pretrial publicity because he was unable to determine the
source of their information. Appellant further argues that the trial
court's action amounts to a "sweeping limitation" on voir dire, which
rises to the level of reversible error. Appellant claims that the trial
court's actions denied him due process, a fair trial, and the right to
an impartial jury. U.S. Const. Amends. 5, 6, and 14; Mo. Const. art. I,
secs. 10 and 18(a).
Six days prior to the commencement of jury selection
in appellant's case, the Benton County Enterprise newspaper in
Warsaw, Missouri, published a front-page article about the appellant's
case. The article noted that the victim was appellant's former landlord,
that appellant had been evicted, that this was appellant's fourth trial,
and that appellant had been convicted and sentenced to death in 1994,
but that this Court had reversed the conviction. In response to concerns
about the effect of any pretrial publicity, the trial court asked the
entire venire panel if they had heard, seen, or read anything from any
source about the trial or about appellant. Sixty-four members of the
venire panel stated that they had heard about the case. Appellant
requested individual voir dire of the sixty-four venirepersons who had
been exposed to pretrial publicity. The trial court determined that it
would be more efficient to question the venirepersons in small groups.
During small group questioning, several venirepersons volunteered the
fact that the source of their pretrial publicity was a newspaper article.
Although the trial court allowed counsel to ask a large number of
questions designed to reveal the presence of bias, prejudice, and
impartiality as a consequence of pretrial publicity, the trial court did
not permit counsel to ask the venirepersons to reveal the specific
source(s) of their information about the case.
The law governing the determination of bias,
prejudice, or impartiality within the venire is well settled. Control of
voir dire is within the discretion of the trial judge; only abuse of
discretion and likely injury justify reversal. State v. Storey ,
901 S.W.2d 886, 894 (Mo. banc 1995). The trial court abuses its
discretion only if the voir dire permitted does not allow for the
discovery of bias, prejudice, or impartiality. State v. Nicklasson
, 967 S.W.2d 596, 609 (Mo. banc 1998). The relevant question in
determining whether a venireperson is biased is not whether there was
publicity surrounding the crime or whether prospective jurors in a case
remembered the publicity or the crime. State v. Feltrop , 803 S.W.2d
1, 8 (Mo. banc 1991). A venireperson is not automatically excluded for
cause simply because he or she may have formed an opinion based on
publicity. Id. The relevant question is whether the jurors had
such fixed opinions about the case that they could not impartially judge
the defendant's guilt or innocence under the law. Id. The trial
court is in the best position to examine a venireperson's demeanor in
making a determination of whether a venireperson should be removed from
the venire because of bias, prejudice, or impartiality. Storey ,
901 S.W.2d at 894.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Appellant's contention that he should have been permitted to identify
the source of the venirepersons' pretrial information rests upon a
faulty premise. The source of the jurors' information is not essential
to determining whether they are biased or prejudiced. As stated above,
in determining bias, the relevant question is whether the potential
juror can set aside any preconceived opinions about the trial or the
defendant and make an impartial determination of the defendant's guilt
or innocence. Id.
The trial court did not prevent appellant from
determining whether the venirepersons exposed to pretrial publicity
could be fair, impartial, and unbiased. The trial court and counsel
thoroughly inquired into the topic of pretrial publicity, asking
questions designed to elicit responses from the venirepersons indicating
the presence of bias or prejudice. The trial court asked the entire
venire whether they had heard, seen, or read anything about the case or
about appellant. Sixty-four answered affirmatively. The court separated
the venirepersons who had been exposed to pretrial publicity from the
remainder of the venire. The court then separated those venirepersons
who had been exposed into small groups. The prosecutor asked each
individual whether he or she had formed an opinion about the case as a
result of the publicity. If the venireperson answered affirmatively,
then the prosecutor asked the person whether he or she could set aside
that opinion and make a determination of the appellant's guilt or
innocence based on the evidence adduced at trial. Even if venirepersons
had not formed an opinion, they were asked whether they could set aside
the pretrial information and determine appellant's guilt or innocence on
the evidence at trial. The record reflects that some venirepersons were
uncomfortable with answering the prosecutor's questions; others
equivocated. The prosecutor then inquired further of those venirepersons
who had difficulty answering.
Appellant's counsel also inquired of each individual
venireperson who had been exposed to pretrial publicity whether he or
she had formed an opinion about the case. Counsel then went into greater
detail, asking the venirepersons whether they had been exposed to
multiple sources of pretrial publicity, whether they considered the
source(s) to be reliable, whether they had discussed their opinions with
others, whether they agreed or disagreed with the opinions of others,
and whether they had been exposed to the publicity before or after they
received the summons for jury duty. Appellant's counsel was also allowed
to inquire of the venirepersons whether they could set aside their
opinions and render a verdict based only upon the evidence presented at
trial. The questioning of the venirepersons was sufficient to allow
appellant to determine whether the members of the panel could be fair,
unbiased, and impartial.
Furthermore, appellant fails to establish a "real
probability" that he was injured by the trial court's limitation on voir
dire. Id. at 147. Appellant does not allege that any individual
who served as a juror was biased or prejudiced against him. Presumably,
appellant would argue that he could not identify the bias of any
individual because he was not allowed to discover the source of the
juror's pretrial publicity. As stated above, however, appellant had
ample opportunity to question each individual juror to determine the
relevant issue of whether the juror had an opinion that he or she could
not set aside. Six venirepersons who responded affirmatively to the
trial court's general question about being exposed to pretrial publicity
were seated as jurors. Of the six members of the jury who had been
exposed to pretrial publicity, only two formed an opinion of the case.
Both stated unequivocally that they could set aside their opinions and
reach a verdict based solely on the evidence adduced at trial.
Appellant relies on State v. Clark , 981 S.W.2d
143 (Mo. banc 1998). In Clark , this Court held that the trial
court improperly restricted voir dire where counsel was not permitted to
ask any questions regarding the age of the child victim. Id. at
147. This Court held that the age of the victim was a critical fact -- a
fact with "substantial potential" for implicating bias -- which should
have been disclosed to the venire panel. Id. The appellant in
Clark suffered a "real probability of injury" as a result of the
trial court's restriction on voir dire. Id. The prosecutor
emphasized at trial that a child victim was involved, referring to the
victim as a "baby" on several occasions, and the record reflected that
one juror left the room crying after viewing autopsy photos of the child.
Id. at 147-48.
The present case is entirely distinguishable from
Clark . In Clark , questioning the members of the venire
panel regarding whether they could impartially judge guilt or innocence
where one of the victims was a child was the only way for appellant's
counsel to determine whether the venirepersons would be biased on
account of the victim's age. In the present case, there was more than
one way by which the trial court could determine whether the
venirepersons were biased as a consequence of pretrial publicity. As
discussed above, the trial court and counsel effectively employed other
questions for that purpose.
The trial court did not err in refusing to allow
appellant to inquire about the source of the venirepersons' information
about the case.
In a related point, appellant claims that the trial
court erred in denying his repeated requests for a continuance and a
change of venue. He claims that the trial court abused its discretion
given the totality of the circumstances. In support, appellant recites
that a substantial number of venirepersons, sixty-eight percent, had
heard about the case prior to trial, presumably from the article in the
Benton County Enterprise , and many of them had either formed an
opinion about the case or discussed it with others. Appellant reiterates
that the trial court allowed only general voir dire and states that the
trial court rejected his request for specific and individualized voir
dire. He also points to the fact that six of the twelve persons who sat
on the jury had heard about the case prior to trial, four of whom had
read "a" newspaper article about the case. Appellant claims, therefore,
that the trial court abused its discretion, in violation of his rights
to due process, a fair trial, and a fair and impartial jury. U.S. Const.
Amends 5, 6, 14; Mo. Const. art. I, secs. 10 and 18(a).
The decision to grant or deny a request for a
continuance and change of venue rests within the trial court's
discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse of
discretion. State v. Kinder , 942 S.W.2d 313, 323 (Mo. banc 1996)
(continuance); State v. Feltrop , 803 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Mo. banc 1991)
(change of venue). A trial court abuses its discretion only when the
record shows that the inhabitants of the county are so prejudiced
against the defendant that a fair trial cannot occur there. Feltrop
, 803 S.W.2d at 6. In assessing the impact of potentially
prejudicial publicity on prospective jurors, the critical question is
not whether they remember the case, but whether they have such fixed
opinions regarding the case that they could not impartially determine
the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Id. The trial court,
rather than the appellate court, is in the better position to assess the
effect of publicity on the members of the community. Id.
As discussed fully above, the trial court permitted a
wide range of inquiry into the possibility of bias and prejudice.
Through voir dire, the court was aware that sixty-four of ninety-two
venirepersons had seen, heard, or read information about the case or
about appellant. Of the sixty-four, the court struck seventeen for
hardship or because they would place greater emphasis on the testimony
of law enforcement officers. The court excused another nineteen
venirepersons because of concerns about potential bias and prejudice
against appellant. Some of those nineteen venirepersons clearly stated
that they had opinions about the case that they could or would not set
aside. Others were equivocal about whether they had opinions or whether
they could set the opinions aside. The trial court, having observed each
individual venirepersons' demeanor while counsel asked questions
regarding pretrial publicity, evaluated whether each venireperson was
affected by publicity and acted accordingly. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion in refusing appellant's request for a continuance
and change of venue.
Appellant claims that the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting, over his objection, the testimony of witness
Ricky Ellis. Ellis, who was an inmate at the Christian County Jail in
January 1992 and was housed in a cell two or three cells away from
appellant's cell, testified at trial as follows:
Q: [By prosecutor] Did you ever hear him [appellant]
refer to somebody by the name of Arnold?
A: Yes.
Q: And what did he say about this person he
referred to as Arnold?
A: He said that he was going to have the guy
killed because he had discussed a murder with him and he talked
about it.
Larry Arnold had previously been appellant's cellmate
in the Christian County Jail. (FN2) Appellant contends that Ellis'
testimony constituted inadmissible evidence of uncharged crimes, wrongs,
or acts.
As a general rule, evidence of uncharged crimes,
wrongs, or acts is not admissible for the purpose of showing the
propensity of the defendant to commit such crimes. State v. Burns
, 978 S.W.2d 759, 761 (Mo. banc 1998). Evidence of uncharged crimes,
wrongs, or acts of the defendant is admissible, however, if the evidence
is logically relevant, in that it has some legitimate tendency to
establish directly the accused's guilt of the charges for which he is on
trial and if the evidence is legally relevant, in that its probative
value outweighs its prejudicial effect. Id .
Ellis' testimony was highly probative. Conduct and
declarations of a defendant that are relevant to show a consciousness of
guilt or a desire to conceal the offense are admissible because they
tend to establish the defendant's guilt of the charged crime. State
v. Haymon , 616 S.W.2d 805, 806-7 (Mo. banc 1981). (FN3) See
State v. Isa , 850 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. banc 1993) ("A permissible
inference of guilt may be drawn from the acts or conduct of a defendant,
subsequent to an offense, if they tend to show a consciousness of guilt
and a desire to conceal the offense or a role therein.") Appellant's
statement that "he was going to have [Arnold] killed because he had
discussed a murder with him and he talked about it" tended to establish
both that appellant described the murder to Arnold and that appellant
wanted to conceal the evidence of his guilt. The testimony of Ricky
Ellis legitimately tended to prove that appellant was the person who
murdered Gladys Kuehler. The probative value of Ellis' testimony
outweighed any prejudicial effect the testimony may have had. The trial
court did not err in admitting Ellis' testimony.
Appellant alleges trial court error in overruling his
objection to the following portion of prosecutor's penalty-phase closing
argument:
Prosecutor: It's not enough that he go to prison.
The only thing that is enough is that he be placed in the most
restrictive possible environment we have until he is removed
permanently from this world, and that is death row. That's not an
easy decision to make. Nobody likes to make it. Well, welcome to the
front lines of the war on crime.
Folks, we've observed every legal
nicety here. Legal niceties --
Counsel for appellant : Your honor, I'm going to
object to that characterization. A fair trial is not a legal nicety.
The court: Overruled.
Prosecutor: I don't mean to demean the process. I
live and work in the process, but I use the term legal nicety not to
demean but to describe it. We have observed the law here and Mr.
Barton has had a fair trial.
Appellant invokes his right to due process and a fair
trial as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Missouri
Constitution. Appellant claims the prosecutor's remark was intended to
disparage appellant for seeking a jury trial and the accompanying
constitutional protections. He contends that the prosecutor's argument
was intended to play into the public perception that criminal defendants
are afforded too many rights and "get off on technicalities." Citing
State v. Lawhorn , 762 S.W.2d 820 (Mo. banc 1988), and State v.
Stallings , 957 S.W.2d 383, 392 (Mo. App. 1997), appellant argues
that reversal is required, because the prosecutor's comment was
analogous to a "direct and certain" reference to a defendant's failure
to testify.
It is correct that references to a defendant's
failure to testify are prohibited, because such comments encourage the
jury to make an inference of guilt from defendant's refusal to testify
as to matters within his knowledge. Griffin v. California , 380
U.S. 609, 614 (1965). Allowing the state to comment on a defendant's
refusal to testify amounts, therefore, to "a penalty imposed by courts
for exercising a constitutional privilege." Id . The prosecutor's
statement in this case, however, does not demand the scrutiny required
when a prosecutor refers to a defendant's refusal to testify; the
prosecutor's comment does not constitute an improper reference to a
defendant's exercise of his constitutional rights. The prosecutor
explained the term as meaning that the law had been observed and that
appellant had had a fair trial. The statement, made in the context of
arguing what penalty should be imposed, does not exceed the bounds of
proper argument. While it may have been preferable for the prosecutor
initially to have used the term "fair trial" instead of "legal niceties,"
the prosecutor explained his use of the term immediately after the court
overruled appellant's objection. Appellant's assertion that the comment
was intended to disparage appellant for seeking a jury trial and the
accompanying constitutional protections is absolutely without basis.
Likewise, appellant's contention that the comment was intended to "play
into the public perception" that criminal defendants are afforded too
many rights and "get off on technicalities" reads into the record an
inference for which there is no support. The trial court did not abuse
its discretion.
Section 565.035.3, RSMo 1994, requires this Court
independently to review the sentence of death. Section 565.035.3(1)
requires this Court to determine whether the sentence of death was
imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other factor.
A thorough review of the record reveals that the death sentence in this
case was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any
other arbitrary factor.
Section 565.035.3(2) requires this Court to determine
whether the evidence supports the jury's or judge's finding of a
statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in subsection 2 of
section 565.032 and any other circumstance found. The record reflects
that the three statutory aggravating circumstances found by the jury are
supported by the evidence.
Section 565.035.3(3) requires this Court to determine
whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the
penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime, the
strength of the evidence, and the defendant. Appellant asserts that the
sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty
imposed in similar cases. Appellant is mistaken.
The crime in this case is similar to other cases in
which the victim has been mutilated, as well as murdered. See State
v. Reuscher , 827 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. banc 1992); State v. Feltrop
, 803 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1991); State v. Rodden , 728 S.W.2d
212 (Mo. banc 1987); State v. Jones , 705 S.W.2d 19 (Mo. banc
1986).
Appellant murdered an elderly invalid who needed the
assistance of a cane to move about. The crime is analogous to other
cases in which victims who were elderly, disabled, or helpless were
murdered. See State v. Walls , 744 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. banc 1988);
State v. Battle , 661 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. banc 1983); State v.
Sidebottom , 753 S.W.2d 915 (Mo. banc 1988); State v. Mathenia
, 702 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. banc 1986); State v. Ramsey , 864 S.W.2d
320 (Mo. banc 1993).
The sentence of death is consistent with the
punishment imposed in other cases where the victim was murdered in
conjunction with the perpetration of a sex offense. See, e.g. State
v. Lingar , 726 S.W.2d 728 (Mo. banc 1987).
The evidence against appellant was strong. Kuehler's
blood was found on appellant's clothing. Appellant was present in
Kuehler's trailer during the time frame in which the crime was committed.
Appellant lied to the police about that fact, as well as about having
received money from Kuehler on the day of the crime. Appellant attempted
to dissuade others from entering the area in which the body was located.
Appellant chose to knock on the window near the victim's body during the
time that others were searching for Kuehler. Appellant confessed to
stabbing an old woman more than forty times and to having carved an "X"
on her body. The state's case, although circumstantial, contains strong
evidence of appellant's guilt.
Considering the defendant, as section 563.035.3(3)
requires, appellant had two prior felony convictions for assault. He
boasted about the murder of Gladys Kuehler to other inmates, including
reporting that he licked the victim's blood off his face and liked it.
The imposition of the sentence of death in this case was not
disproportionate under all the facts and circumstances presented at
trial.
The judgment is affirmed.
Footnotes:
FN1. A history of this case is set forth in
State v. Barton , 936 S.W.2d 781, 782 (Mo. banc 1996).
FN2. At trial, the state also adduced Arnold's
testimony that appellant had admitted to "killing an old lady by cutting
her throat, stabbing her and carving an X on her body."
FN3. Appellant argues that the consciousness
of guilt rationale does not apply to testimony of a third party as to
threats made by a defendant against another witness. Appellant cites no
authority for this position.
Separate Opinion:
Dissenting Opinion by Judge Wolff:
Fundamental to our notions of a fair trial is the
right of the defendant to be convicted only on evidence produced in
court, and not on evidence contained in newspaper stories. The newspaper
story that appeared less than one week before the trial, to which two-thirds
of the venire apparently were exposed, provided the information that
Barton had previously been convicted of this murder by a jury in another
county, but that his conviction had been overturned, that the victim was
his landlady, and that he had been evicted from her trailer court. The
latter is a "fact" that would have supplied a motive for the killing. At
the time of voir dire examination of prospective jurors, the
trial court and counsel knew that information as to motive was not going
to be admitted into evidence, and defense counsel said the information
was false. In the circumstances of this case, I believe the voir dire
was inadequate to assure that Barton would be tried only on properly
admitted evidence; therefore, I respectfully dissent.
In another, previous trial Barton had not been
convicted of this killing because the jury was unable to agree on a
verdict. Much of the certainty that his most recent trial is afforded,
as well as evidence of aggravating circumstances supporting imposition
of the death penalty, came from ever-helpful fellow prisoners. Perhaps
the evidence of guilt may be subject to nonfrivolous debate; if so, we
should give particular scrutiny to assure that facts outside the
courtroom did not assist in the conviction of this defendant. If we are
unsure, a new trial should be afforded.
It may seem wasteful to try Barton again, since 24
jurors have unanimously found him guilty in two of his three trials. On
the other hand, there were 12 who were unable to agree on Barton's guilt.
Where the stakes are life and death, we do not hesitate to give trials
careful review. It is impossible to guarantee a capital defendant a
perfect trial, but he is entitled to one that is more than merely good
enough. Since 1976, the death penalty has been reinstated in most states.
It has been reported that nationally, since 1976, 77 death row prisoners
found guilty by unanimous juries have been set free; the number of death
row inmates later found to have been wrongfully convicted is thus about
one-seventh of the number of prisoners executed. (FN1) Even a process as
laudable as the American jury system gets it wrong a substantial number
of times, as these data show, even though its findings are made
unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, we should conduct
the most careful review possible, and in most instances we do. I do not
fault the bulk of the principal opinion's review, except that the
voir dire standard was insufficient to determine whether extraneous
information, some of it purportedly untrue, may have provided some of
the basis for Barton's conviction.
The voir dire examination conducted in this
case resembles that upheld in Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415
(1991). There, as here, the trial court divided the prospective jurors
into small groups, but denied questions as to the source and content of
the pre-trial publicity. However, in Mu'Min the pre-trial
publicity was extensive and the evidence of the defendant's guilt
overwhelming. Here, the pre-trial publicity was not extensive -- it was
intensive or targeted, in that these Benton County jurors would have had
no exposure to media accounts of the killing when it actually occurred
some years before in a different county. Rather, these prospective
jurors were exposed to a particular story in the local newspaper (and
perhaps in other sources) immediately prior to the trial and apparently
after the time the venirepersons were called for jury service. Of the
initial venire of 92 persons, 63 or 64 had heard about the case. After
initial excusals of venirepersons for cause, 40 prospective jurors were
questioned, 17 had already formed an opinion about the case, and 27 had
discussed the case with other persons and/or had heard someone else
express an opinion about the case.
Opinions, of course, are based upon "facts", at least
in part. When a juror is asked if he can set aside what he has heard and
his own opinions, and render a fair verdict, most will respond
affirmatively. In Mu'Min v. Virginia, only one of the many jurors
exposed to pre-trial publicity indicated an inability to do so. In
Barton's case, there were more who expressed that opinion and were
excused.
But if motive is a critical question in the minds of
jurors, and the only evidence of motive is in the pre-trial publicity to
which a substantial number of jurors were exposed, it is impossible to
ascertain on this record that such a fact has truly been set aside.
Missouri cases hold that a defendant's right to an impartial jury has
been sufficiently safeguarded if the venireperson is questioned
appropriately as to bias and states that his or her decision can be made
based on the evidence presented at trial. The trial judge, of course,
must believe the statement and believe the prospective juror to be
unbiased. State v. Nicklasson, 967 S.W. 2d 596, 611-612 (Mo. banc
1998).
However, the fact that prospective jurors say they
can set aside what they have heard or seen should not end the inquiry.
In Irvin v. Dowd , 366 U.S. 717 (1961), for instance, the court
held that the evidence of deep and bitter prejudice that pervaded the
community and was reflected in voir dire questioning was so
prejudicial that a new trial was warranted, even though the jurors
stated they could decide the case on the evidence presented at trial.
Irvin was charged with six murders that had generated substantial local
publicity and indignation. Eight of the twelve jurors admitted thinking
the defendant was guilty, but each claimed they could remain impartial.
In a much less extreme case than Irvin , the court in Marshall
v. United States , 360 U.S. 310 (1959), found that the exposure of
some jurors during the trial to newspaper articles with facts about
Marshall not admissible in evidence was so prejudicial as to entitle
Marshall to a new trial. During trial for unlicensed dispensing of drugs,
the prosecutor sought to introduce Marshall's prior convictions for
practicing medicine without a license. The trial judge refused to admit
the prior convictions into evidence, but two newspapers containing the
information got before seven of the jurors. The trial judge questioned
the jurors individually, and each assured the court that they could
decide the case only on the evidence presented at trial. See also,
Sheppard v. Maxwell , 384 U.S. 333 (1966), and Patton v. Yount
, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984).
One of the weaknesses of the jury selection standards
articulated since Mu'Min v. Virginia , supra, is that jurors
instructed to disregard something will often do the opposite, though
perhaps not consciously disregarding the court's admonitions. Kalvin and
Zeisel, The American Jury (University of Chicago Press, 1971)
reported that juries that had previous knowledge of a criminal defendant,
such as criminal record, were more likely to convict. The same series of
empirical studies of jury behavior found that jurors instructed to
disregard a particular fact apparently did the opposite. See,
Broeder, The University of Chicago Jury Project , 38 Nebraska Law
Review 744 at 754 (1959). Even though there is "no doubt each juror was
sincere when he said he would be fair," as the court said in Irvin v.
Dowd , supra , "The influence that lurks in an opinion once
formed is so persistent that it unconsciously fights detachment from the
mental processes" of the average person. 366 U.S. at 727,728.
Our cases largely leave it to the trial judge to
determine a prospective juror's bias, which is "often a question of
demeanor." State v. Storey , 901 S.W. 2d 886, 894 (Mo. banc 1995)
(citing State v. Schneider , 736 S.W. 2d 392, 403 (Mo. banc
1987), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 1047 (1988). This standard makes
the trial judge's discretion virtually undisturbable because demeanor is
not subject to appellate review. Especially with this deferential
standard, we ought to review carefully not just the general notion of
bias, but whether the trial court properly ascertained whether jurors
had in their heads facts about the case that might form part of the
basis for their verdict. To be specific, we cannot tell from this record
whether some of the jurors came to court with the information that
Barton is the man who killed his former landlady because she evicted him.
The jurors were asked if they could set aside what they had heard or
read -- without inquiry as to what it was. Common sense tells us that it
is probably not humanly possible to set aside these facts, especially
where a person has no reason to believe that the "fact" about motive is
false.
In this case, the risk that the trial process was
tainted with extraneous evidence was sufficiently great that I would
find it an abuse of discretion not to allow, at the very least,
individual questioning of prospective jurors to ascertain the extent of
their knowledge of matters that properly were not evidence in the case
so as to ensure a panel as free as possible of factual taint and
prejudging disposition. Such questioning would also have provided a
basis for soundly determining whether the defense motion for change of
venue or continuance should have been granted. Barton should be given a
new trial.
Footnotes:
FN1. Viveca Novak, The Cost of Poor Advice
, Time, July 5, 1999, at 38. See also , Carolyn Tuft, Ex-death
Row Inmates Attack Capital Punishment, Courts , St. Louis Post
Dispatch, November 16, 1998, at A-1.