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.
COLUMBIA, Mo. — A jury found a patrolman
guilty Saturday of killing a gay college student who had talked
about revealing their sexual affair to the police chief.
Steven Rios, a married junior officer in this
university town's police force, was convicted of the first-degree murder
of his lover, Jesse Valencia, 23.
The finding by the nine-woman, three-man panel
carries an automatic sentence of life in prison without parole for Rios,
28.
Jurors also recommended an additional, largely
symbolic sentence of 10 years for the charge of armed criminal action
related to Rios' use of a knife in the crime.
The prosecutor had asked for a second life sentence
to send a message to other law enforcement officers that "that there
will be a ton of bricks dropped" if they break the laws they are sworn
to uphold.
Valencia, a University of Missouri junior who was
open about his homosexuality, was found dead on a lawn near campus with
his throat slit June 5, 2004. The wound was so deep, the medical
examiner said, there were knife marks on the spine.
As Boone County Circuit Court Judge Ellen Roper
announced the verdict, reached after nine hours of deliberation over two
days, Rios looked down at the defense table and shook his head ruefully.
Later, as a defense lawyer tried to persuade the jury against imposing a
second life sentence, Rios began crying and stared longingly toward his
wife, who was weeping in the spectator's gallery.
Libby Rios, who took the witness stand and
steadfastly maintained her husband's innocence, cried out "I love you"
as marshals escorted her husband from the courtroom.
"I love you," he whispered back.
The verdict was an endorsement of the prosecution
theory that Rios killed Valencia because the student had threatened to
expose their relationship. The two began an affair seven weeks before
the murder, when Rios arrested Valencia for mouthing off to police
breaking up a wild off-campus party. Their relationship included trysts
at Valencia's apartment when Rios was in uniform and supposed to be
patrolling the neighborhood.
The history and political science major told
classmates he suspected his new lover was married and planned to
confront him. He also wanted Rios to fix the ticket from the party and
suggested to his best friend he would tell the chief of his "little
secret" if the ticket didn't go away.
"He had given this boy the power to ruin his police
career, his political aspirations and his marriage," special prosecutor
Morley Swingle told jurors in his closing argument Friday.
Swingle, who was brought in from Cape Girardeau
County because of Rios ties to the prosecutor's office in Columbia,
charged that Rios "used his badge for sex and then used his knife to
forever close the mouth of his secret lover."
Rios' DNA was found under the victim's fingernails
and three of his hairs on the young man's chest.
The officer acknowledged the affair but, when
testifying in his own defense, insisted to jurors that he was miles away
at a party on the police station roof when the killing occurred.
Jurors rejected arguments by Rios' defense lawyer
that the forensic evidence could be explained by the intimate
relationship between the men and Valencia's inattention to hygiene and
housekeeping. During four days of testimony, the lawyer, Valerie
Leftwich, painted Valencia as promiscuous and loud-mouthed and said his
many lovers and volatile personality made for a deep pool of better
suspects.
More than 20 of Valencia's classmates, friends and
relatives were in court for the verdict and greeted it with gasps of
relief. His mother, Linda Valencia, fell forward in her seat and broke
down in tears, as did a former boyfriend and several female friends.
In addition to his wife, Rios' brother, father and
in-laws were on hand for the verdict. Afterward, they gathered around
Libby Rios, who was holding a blond toddler. The couple has a 16-month
old son, Grayson. An attorney for Rios' family, Geoffrey Preckshot, said
his relatives had no comment, but wanted the public to know they still
firmly supported him.
"Today's jury verdict has not changed that core
belief in his innocence," he said.
Outside the courthouse, Swingle called Rios "an
arrogant, conceited sociopath" and revealed several pieces of evidence
against him ruled inadmissible at trial. He said Rios had lied to
Valencia about his name throughout their relationship. He said the
victim told his friends he was dating an officer named Ted Anderson and
even called the Columbia Police Department in search of officer Anderson.
Swingle noted that the breast-pocket nametag of the real officer Ted
Anderson had been stolen.
Swingle also said several women had come forward to
police after the murder and said Rios had hit them up for sex after
arresting them.
"We had three women sitting in the witness waiting
room [Friday] and each of them had been propositioned by him for sexual-type
acts," Swingle said. If Rios or any other defense witnesses had referred
to his good character, the prosecutor said, he was prepared to put the
women on the stand to rebut the testimony.
He also said Rios was fired from a job at the Boone
County jail for renting a storage space under another officer's name.
"Basically forgery," Swingle said.
Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Case Style:
State of Missouri, Respondent v. Steven Arthur Rios, Appellant.
Case Number: WD65708
Handdown Date: 27/04/2007
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Boone County, Hon. Ellen S. Roper
Opinion Summary:
Steven Rios appeals his conviction for first-degree murder, under
section 565.020, and armed criminal action, under section 571.015.
First, Rios asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in
overruling his objection to the admission of two hearsay statements
of the victim. Second, Rios claims that the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting 47 photographs of the victim's body taken at
the scene of the crime and during the autopsy. Third, Rios contends
that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to
introduce a knife purchased by the Columbia Police Department for
demonstrative purposes. Fourth, Rios asserts that the trial court
abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce two
photographs of the victim taken at a party on the morning he was
murdered.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Division Four holds: The trial court erred in admitting the
two hearsay statements made by the victim because the statements did
not indicate an intent to perform an act in the immediate future and,
therefore, did not fall within the future acts exception to the
hearsay rule. In addition, because the statements were offered by
the State to provide Rios a motive for murder, admission of the
statements prejudiced Rios.
Opinion Author:
Patricia Breckenridge, Judge
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Howard, P.J., and Hardwick,
J., concur.
Opinion:
Steven Rios appeals his conviction for first degree murder, under
section 565.020, RSMo 2000,(FN1) and
armed criminal action, under section 571.015. The trial court
sentenced Mr. Rios, according to the jury's recommendation, to life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the first degree
murder count and ten years imprisonment for the armed criminal
action count. Mr. Rios raises four points on appeal.
In his first point, Mr. Rios asserts that the trial court abused its
discretion in overruling his objection to the admission of two
hearsay statements of the victim. In particular, the first hearsay
statement challenged by Mr. Rios concerns a statement made by the
victim that he was going to end his relationship with Mr. Rios if he
found out that Mr. Rios was married. The second challenged hearsay
statement made by the victim was that if Mr. Rios did not take care
of a municipal ticket Mr. Rios issued to the victim, that he had a
secret that might be of interest to the Columbia Police Department,
Mr. Rios's employer.
In his second point on appeal, Mr. Rios claims that the trial court
abused its discretion in admitting forty-seven gruesome photographs
of the victim's body taken at the scene of the crime and during the
autopsy. Mr. Rios contends that the photographs were irrelevant,
duplicative, designed to inflame the passions of the jury, and the
probative value of the photographs was outweighed by their
prejudicial effect.
In his third point on appeal, Mr. Rios contends that the trial court
abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce a Spyderco
clip knife purchased by the Columbia Police Department for
demonstrative purposes. Mr. Rios claims that the admission of the
knife was highly prejudicial because the knife had no connection to
the crime or to him, it was irrelevant to any issue in the case, and
the admission of the knife carried an undue risk of confusing the
jury.
In his fourth point on appeal, Mr. Rios asserts that the trial court
abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce two
photographs of the victim taken at a party on the morning he was
murdered. Mr. Rios claims that the photographs were irrelevant, were
used to arouse the passions and sympathy of the jury, and any
probative value the photographs may have had was overwhelmed by
their prejudicial effect.
Because the trial court erred in admitting two statements made by
the victim, and the admission of the statements prejudiced Mr. Rios,
the trial court's judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for
a new trial.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
During the early morning hours of April 18, 2004, Columbia police
officers were dispatched to an apartment on three separate occasions
for noise disturbances. Mr. Rios, a police officer with the Columbia
Police Department, and Officers Brad Anderson and Kim Jensen
responded to the third call. Officer Jensen handcuffed the three
occupants of the apartment until the party began to settle down and
wrote each a ticket. Meanwhile, Jesse Valencia(FN2)
and another man were on the porch of the apartment. Mr. Rios told
both men that they needed to leave. When they refused to leave, Mr.
Rios arrested them. Mr. Rios took Mr. Valencia to his patrol car and
Officer Anderson took the other man to his patrol car. Both men were
issued a court summons for obstructing a police operation and were
released. After he was released, Mr. Valencia walked home to his
apartment on 1414 Wilson Avenue.
Later that day, Mr. Valencia told one of his friends that the police
officer that ticketed him at the party was going to pick him up
after he finished working his shift at the Campus Inn. Because Mr.
Valencia's friends were curious to see if he was telling the truth,
they decided to "stake out" the Campus Inn. While Mr. Valencia's
friends did not actually see Mr. Rios pick Mr. Valencia up at the
Campus Inn, they later saw Mr. Rios and Mr. Valencia get out of Mr.
Rios's black Explorer in front of Mr. Valencia's apartment.
In the early morning hours of May 8, 2004, Mr. Valencia and his
friend, Joan Sheridan, were at a party when Ms. Sheridan decided
that she was tired and wanted to go home. Because Ms. Sheridan had
been drinking, Mr. Valencia told her that she could stay at his
apartment, which was nearby. Ms. Sheridan agreed and Mr. Valencia
told her that he would be home later. About 3:00 a.m., when
Ms. Sheridan was getting ready to go to sleep, someone knocked on Mr.
Valencia's door. Thinking that it was Mr. Valencia, Ms. Sheridan
opened the door. She was surprised to find Mr. Rios standing outside
the door. While Mr. Rios was dressed in civilian clothing, Ms.
Sheridan recognized him as the police officer who had responded to a
noise complaint at the party that she had attended earlier that
evening. Mr. Rios asked Ms. Sheridan if Mr. Valencia was home and
asked why she was there. When Ms. Sheridan explained to Mr. Rios why
she was there and that Mr. Valencia was not home, Mr. Rios offered
Ms. Sheridan a ride home. She refused and Mr. Rios left.
About 1:30 a.m. on the morning of May 14, 2004, Mr. Valencia
and a friend, Andy Schermerhorn, went to Mr. Valencia's apartment
after going out the previous evening. After arriving, Mr. Valencia
and Mr. Schermerhorn began to engage in sexual activity. About 3:00
or 3:30 a.m., Mr. Rios, in his police uniform, knocked on Mr.
Valencia's door. Mr. Valencia let Mr. Rios in and Mr. Rios followed
Mr. Valencia into the bedroom. All three men engaged in sexual
activity. Afterwards, Mr. Rios told Mr. Schermerhorn that the
encounter needed to be a secret and asked Mr. Schermerhorn his name.
Mr. Schermerhorn told him that if it needed to be a secret, that he
should not tell him his name. When Mr. Rios received a call over his
radio, Mr. Valencia asked Mr. Rios when he would see him again. Mr.
Rios said it would be a surprise.
On May 20, 2004, Mr. Valencia appeared in court on the summons Mr.
Rios issued to him on April 18th. On the probable cause statement of
the ticket, Mr. Rios had written, "obstructing a government
operation." Rose Wibbenmeyer, a prosecutor for the City of Columbia,
amended the ticket and added the language "by physical interference."
The amendment made by Ms. Wibbenmeyer, however, merely clarified
which section of the ordinance the city was proceeding under and did
not change the charge or the penalty. When Mr. Valencia appeared in
court, the judge read the additional language added to the ticket by
Ms. Wibbenmeyer. Mr. Valencia pleaded not guilty and the case was
set for a pretrial conference on June 28, 2004.
Sometime during the week following Mr. Valencia's arraignment, Mr.
Valencia had a conversation with Ms. Sheridan about going to court.
He told her that the ticket was still in force and that the charges
"sounded worse." Ms. Sheridan said that Mr. Valencia was upset about
the ticket and that "he thought he wouldn't have had this ticket at
this point and that [it] would be gone." Mr. Valencia then told Ms.
Sheridan, "'[i]f he doesn't get this ticket taken away,' the police
officer didn't get the ticket taken away, he was going to -- or he
said he had a little secret that he thought the Columbia Police
Department might like to know."
In the early morning hours of June 2, 2004, Ms. Sheridan and Mr.
Valencia were walking to Mr. Valencia's apartment from a friend's
birthday party they had attended. Mr. Valencia had asked Ms.
Sheridan if she wanted to spend the night. Even though Ms. Sheridan
thought she could have driven home that night, she agreed to spend
the night. While they were walking, Mr. Valencia told Ms. Sheridan,
"The police officer might come over tonight." Ms. Sheridan thought
that she "probably didn't want to be there then." Mr. Valencia,
however, told her, "'No. No. Just come over and spend the night. I
just won't answer the door when he knocks. And just, you know --
I'll just stay asleep.'" Mr. Valencia then told Ms. Sheridan, "'I'm
really going to ask him this time if he's married or not. Because if
he's married, I don't want to be involved in a relationship with a
married man.'"
The next day, June 3, Mr. Valencia went to dinner with several
friends and then to a gay dance club. At the club, Mr. Valencia met
Edward McDevitt. After the club closed, Mr. Valencia and Mr.
McDevitt got a ride to Mr. Valencia's apartment from Jennifer
Witherspoon. Ms. Witherspoon gave both men an invitation to a party
at her apartment the following evening. When Mr. Valencia and Mr.
McDevitt got to Mr. Valencia's apartment, the two engaged in sexual
activity. The next morning, after making plans to meet at the party
later that evening, Mr. McDevitt left Mr. Valencia's apartment about
10:00 a.m.
After Mr. Valencia got off work about 11:00 p.m. on June 4,
he went to the party at Ms. Witherspoon's apartment. When he got to
the party, Mr. Valencia called Mr. McDevitt, who had decided that he
wanted to go to bed and did not want to go to the party. Mr.
McDevitt's roommate, Eric Thurston, however, woke Mr. McDevitt up
and convinced him to go out for the evening. Both men eventually
ended up at Ms. Witherspoon's party. Sometime between 2:00 and 2:30 a.m., Mr. McDevitt and Mr. Valencia left Ms. Witherspoon's
party and went across the street to another party, where they stayed
until leaving shortly after 3:00 a.m. The two men chatted for
a short time on the sidewalk and Mr. Valencia ultimately invited Mr.
McDevitt to his apartment. Mr. McDevitt declined because he had to
work the next morning. The two then made plans to get together on
Sunday night and Mr. McDevitt left. About 3:13 a.m., Mr.
Valencia called Mr. McDevitt on his cell phone to ask one last time
if he wanted to come home with him. Again, Mr. McDevitt declined the
invitation.
After Mr. McDevitt left, Mr. Valencia returned to Ms. Witherspoon's
party, where he spent some time talking with Ms. Witherspoon. Mr.
Valencia left Ms. Witherspoon's about 3:30 a.m. The friend of
Mr. Valencia who had hosted the party across the street, saw Mr.
Valencia walk by about 3:45 a.m. and waved at him. Mr.
Valencia returned the wave and said that he was going home to go to
sleep. Mr. Valencia then walked away in the direction of his
apartment.
Christopher Kepner lived in an apartment next to Mr. Valencia. A "paper
thin" interior wall separated their apartments. About 3:00 a.m.
that same morning, June 5, 2004, Mr. Kepner returned to his
apartment and immediately went to bed. Some time later, a "bumping"
on the shared wall between his and Mr. Valencia's apartments awoke
Mr. Kepner. The "bumping" continued down the wall toward the front
door. Mr. Kepner heard "a really intoxicated kind of slurring voice"
say, "Stop it, stop it," and, "No, I'm not sleeping in the car."
While Mr. Kepner could hear two voices, he could not make out any
other specific statements. Mr. Kepner eventually yelled something
like, "Yeah, that's right, stop it. It's late." After Mr. Kepner
yelled, the noise immediately stopped. Between 10:00 and 11:00
a.m. the next morning, when Mr. Kepner went outside, he noticed
Mr. Valencia's door was about halfway open.
About 2:00 p.m. on the afternoon of June 5, 2004, Matt
Finucane, who lived at 1513 Wilson Avenue, across the street and
several houses down the block from Mr. Valencia, discovered Mr.
Valencia's dead body between his house and 1517 Wilson Avenue. Mr.
Valencia's body, clothed in a pair of blue running shorts, was lying
on its back in an awkward position in the grass between the two
houses. Mr. Valencia's throat had been slit and there were flies
buzzing around the neck wound. Dried blood ran down the sides of Mr.
Valencia's neck and over his shoulders. Blood had also pooled
underneath Mr. Valencia's upper body. Mr. Finucane immediately
called 9-1-1 and Columbia police officers arrived momentarily.
About 5:45 p.m., crime scene technicians placed Mr.
Valencia's body in a body bag and transported it to the medical
examiner's office. The subsequent autopsy revealed that Mr.
Valencia's primary injury was a gaping, incised, neck wound. The
wound was longer than it was deep and had severed Mr. Valencia's
jugular veins and the muscles on the side of his neck. The injury
also nicked Mr. Valencia's spine. The wound had an "equally distant
parallel mark pattern," which suggested that a knife with "some
degree of serration" caused the wound. In addition, given the nature
of the wound and the location of the blood, it was determined that
Mr. Valencia must have been unconscious and lying down when his
throat was slit.
Mr. Valencia's body also had a number of other injuries, including
an injury to his upper lip, a nine-centimeter contusion along his
jawline, a bad bruise to his left ear, and a number of contusions
and abrasions on his arms, abdomen, hips, and knees. Mr. Valencia
also had significant contusions to his chest, upper back, shoulders,
and a "tremendous hemorrhage" underneath his chest bruise. Mr.
Valencia's eye and larynx also suffered from petechiae hemorrhaging.
Such hemorrhaging is consistent with having been rendered
unconscious. Mr. Valencia did not have any defensive wounds on his
hands or arms.
On the day that Mr. Valencia was murdered, i.e., June 5, Mr. Rios
finished working his shift at 3:00 a.m. After the shift ended,
Mr. Rios and three other police officers met on the roof of the
Columbia Police Department to socialize. While on the roof, the
officers drank beer and chatted. As it started to get light outside,
the gathering broke up and the officers began to leave. Mr. Rios was
the second officer to leave the roof. Columbia Police Dispatcher
Leah Wooden left the gathering after Mr. Rios and made a telephone
call to officer Jason Jones at 4:57 a.m. while driving out of
the parking garage. Ms. Wooden estimated that Mr. Rios left about
ten minutes before she did, or at approximately 4:47 a.m.
Elizabeth Rios, Mr. Rios's wife, who was up at the time preparing a
bottle for their four-month-old son, estimated that Mr. Rios got
home sometime between 5:15 a.m. and 5:25 a.m.
Later that day, sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m., Mr. Rios
returned to the police station for his shift. When Mr. Rios got to
the police station, he asked Sergeant John White what was going on
because he had heard that there had been a homicide on his beat.
Sergeant White told Mr. Rios that he thought the victim was Mr.
Valencia. Mr. Rios said that he knew Mr. Valencia because he had
arrested him. Sergeant White told Mr. Rios to go to the scene to
identify Mr. Valencia. Sergeant Kenneth Smith drove Mr. Rios, still
in civilian clothing, to the crime scene to meet with Detective Tim
Giger. When he arrived at the crime scene, Mr. Rios identified Mr.
Valencia by looking at a picture. Mr. Rios then returned to the
police station to change into his uniform. He then returned to the
crime scene, where he spent the majority of his shift.
On the evening of June 6, 2004, the Columbia Police Department
received a Crime Stoppers report that a married police officer was
having an affair with Mr. Valencia, the murder victim. On June 8,
about 8:35 a.m., after learning of the Crime Stoppers report,
Mr. Rios went to the office of Sergeant Stephen Monticelli, who was
the supervisor of the investigation of Mr. Valencia's murder. Mr.
Rios told Sergeant Monticelli that he had heard about the report
suggesting that Mr. Valencia was having a sexual affair with a
married police officer. Mr. Rios told Sergeant Monticelli that he
was not having a sexual affair with Mr. Valencia but believed the
report was talking about him. Sergeant Monticelli then told Mr. Rios
that he needed to be officially questioned by the investigators. Mr.
Rios agreed and, shortly thereafter, Sergeant Monticelli returned
with Detective John Short to conduct the interview. At first, Mr.
Rios denied having an affair with Mr. Valencia. However, after being
confronted with information that a female witness had told them that
Mr. Rios had visited Mr. Valencia's apartment in plain clothes, Mr.
Rios began to change his story. As Detective Short continued to
confront Mr. Rios with additional information that they had already
gathered, Mr. Rios finally admitted that he had been to Mr.
Valencia's apartment about five or six times and that he had engaged
in sexual activity with Mr. Valencia. Mr. Rios was eventually
released and allowed to go home.
DNA comparison samples were ultimately sent to the crime lab for
several individuals who may have had contact with Mr. Valencia,
including Mr. Rios. Trace evidence found on Mr. Valencia's body,
including hair, was also tested. The DNA in three of the hairs was
found to be a 1 in 756.6 trillion match to Mr. Rios's DNA.(FN3)
Fingernail clippings from Mr. Valencia were also sent to the crime
lab. DNA under the fingernail clippings was found to be from three
individuals, Mr. Rios, Mr. McDevitt, and Mr. Valencia. Mr.
McDevitt's DNA was also found on Mr. Valencia's shorts, a condom
from Mr. Valencia's apartment, a penile swab of Mr. Valencia, and
from the sexual assault kit.
On September 1, 2004, the State filed a two count information
against Mr. Rios for first degree murder and armed criminal action.
At trial, the State's theory of how Mr. Valencia was killed was that
Mr. Rios rendered Mr. Valencia unconscious by using a defensive
technique called the "unilateral vascular neck restraint," which is
taught to law enforcement personnel. Then, when Mr. Valencia was
unconscious and lying down, the State argued that Mr. Rios slit his
throat with a serrated knife. In addition, the State argued that Mr.
Rios's motive in killing Mr. Valencia was to "close the mouth of
Jesse Valencia forever" because Mr. Valencia had indicated to Ms.
Sheridan that he was going to confront Mr. Rios about being a
married man and that, if Mr. Rios did not make his ticket go away,
he would reveal a "little secret" to the Columbia Police Department.
Following a week long trial, the jury found Mr. Rios guilty on both
counts. Mr. Rios was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole
on the murder count and a consecutive ten-year sentence for armed
criminal action. This appeal followed.
II. Prejudicial Error in Admission of Hearsay Statements
In his first point on appeal, Mr. Rios asserts that the trial court
abused its discretion in overruling his objection to the admission
of two hearsay statements of the victim. In particular, the first
hearsay statement challenged by Mr. Rios concerns a statement made
by the victim to Ms. Sheridan that he was going to end his
relationship with Mr. Rios if he found out that Mr. Rios was married.
The second challenged hearsay statement made by the victim, also to
Ms. Sheridan, was that if Mr. Rios did not take care of a municipal
ticket that Mr. Rios had issued to him, he had a secret that might
be of interest to the Columbia Police Department, Mr. Rios's
employer. Mr. Rios argues that neither statement falls within any
hearsay exception and that the statements were improperly used by
the State as proof of Mr. Rios's motive and evidence of his guilt.
The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to admit
or exclude testimony. State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218,
223 (Mo. banc 2006). This court will reverse the "trial court's
ruling on the admission of evidence only if the court has clearly
abused its discretion." Id. The trial court abuses its
discretion "'when a ruling is clearly against the logic of the
circumstances and is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of
careful consideration.'" Id. (citation omitted).
Moreover, this court reviews "'for prejudice, not mere error, and
will reverse only if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived
the defendant of a fair trial.'" Id. at 223-24 (citation
omitted). "Trial court error is not prejudicial unless there is a
reasonable probability that the trial court's error affected the
outcome of the trial." Id. at 224.
Prior to trial, Mr. Rios filed a motion in limine regarding the
challenged hearsay statements. Mr. Rios alleged that the State
should be precluded from eliciting statements made by Mr. Valencia
concerning any "future plan to ask [Mr. Rios] about whether or not
he was married, [and] about informing the police department about
their 'affair.'" The trial court took the motion with the case.
At trial, the State asked Ms. Sheridan about the last conversation
she had with Mr. Valencia prior to his death. Ms. Sheridan began to
relate Mr. Valencia's statement, made on June 2, when Mr. Rios
objected based on his previously filed hearsay objection. The trial
court overruled the objection on the assumption "that the testimony
[was] going to be about something that occurred in the future as
opposed to the past." Ms. Sheridan then stated:
[Mr. Valencia] just said, "The police
officer might come over tonight." And I thought, Well, I
probably didn't want to be there then. So I said, "If you
want, I can just go home. And it's fine. I'll just see you
tomorrow." And [Mr. Valencia] was like, "No. No. Just come
over and spend the night. I just won't answer the door when
he knocks. And just, you know -- I'll just stay asleep." And
then [Mr. Valencia] kind of paused for a second and he said,
"I'm really going to ask him this time if he's married or
not. Because if he's married, I don't want to be involved in
a relationship with a married man."
The State then asked Ms. Sheridan about another conversation she had
with Mr. Valencia regarding his ticket. Again, Mr. Rios objected on
the basis of his previously filed motion in limine. The trial court
overruled the objection on the assumption that Ms. Sheridan was
going to "testify as to statements made as to future plans with
respect to this issue." Ms. Sheridan then testified about the
conversation she had with Mr. Valencia sometime around May 20th
regarding his future plans in regard to the ticket:
Well, he found out that his ticket still
was in standing and that the charges were -- sounded worse.
And so he was really upset. And he -- he said that he
thought he wouldn't have had this ticket at this point and
that would be gone. And then he said, "If he doesn't get
this ticket taken away," the police officer didn't get the
ticket taken away, he was going to -- or he said he had a
little secret that he thought the Columbia Police Department
might like to know.
In his motion for new trial, and on appeal, Mr. Rios contends that
the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his objections
to the admission of Ms. Sheridan's testimony on the grounds that the
statements were hearsay and not admissible under the state of mind
exception because they were irrelevant to any issue in the case. Mr.
Rios also claims that the statements were prejudicial because it
would be impossible for the jury to use the statements as evidence
of Mr. Valencia's state of mind concerning his future intentions but,
rather, the jury would use the statements as proof of Mr. Rios's
motive.
The State concedes that Mr. Valencia's statements to Ms. Sheridan
were hearsay. Mr. Rios acknowledges that hearsay statements of a
victim's state of mind made out of court can be admissible under the
state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. State v. Nastasio,
957 S.W.2d 454, 458 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). SeealsoState v. Kennedy, 842 S.W.2d 937, 942 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992)
("general rule [is] that statements of a victim's present mental
condition made out of court are excepted from the rule against
hearsay"). To be admissible, however, such statements must be
relevant. State v. Ford, 639 S.W.2d 573, 574 (Mo. 1982).
Nevertheless, Mr. Rios argues that the statements made by Mr.
Valencia were not relevant to any issue in the case and, therefore,
were inadmissible under the state of mind exception.
The "state of mind exception only permits admission of [ ]
statements 'in limited situations when they are relevant and the
relevancy outweighs their prejudicial effect.'" Nastasio,
957 S.W.2d at 458 (quoting State v. Bell, 950 S.W.2d
482, 483 (Mo. banc 1997)). In particular, the state of mind
exception "'is generally limited to cases where hearsay declarations
of mental condition are especially relevant-particularly where the
defendant has put the decedent's mental state at issue by claiming
accident, self-defense or suicide.'" Id. (quoting
Bell, 950 S.W.2d at 483). Seealso
Ford, 639 S.W.2d at 575 (deceased's statements regarding
state of mind admissible because "relevant to the issue of which
participant in the shooting was the aggressor"); State v.
Pagano, 882 S.W.2d 326, 331 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994) (deceased's
statement regarding state of mind admissible because relevant to
theory of self-defense); Kennedy, 842 S.W.2d at 944 (deceased's
statement regarding state of mind admissible because relevant to
rebut defendant's evidence that her husband died by suicide or
accident); State v. Singh, 586 S.W.2d 410, 419 (Mo. App.
S.D. 1979) (deceased's statements regarding state of mind
admissible because relevant to rebut defense of accidental death and
self-defense).
Here, Mr. Rios denied any participation in Mr. Valencia's murder and
denied that he was present when the murder took place. Mr. Rios did
not raise the issue of self-defense, accident, or suicide. Therefore,
Mr. Valencia's statements were not relevant to prove that Mr.
Valencia's "death was intentional rather than accidental or suicide"
and, therefore, were inadmissible under the state of mind exception. Nastasio, 957 S.W.2d at 459. This conclusion, however,
does not end our inquiry.
The state of mind exception to the hearsay rule also allows the
admission of statements "to show a future intent of the declarant to
perform an act if the occurrence of that act is at issue."
United States v. Brown, 490 F.2d 758, 762 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
Specifically, "'[a] declaration indicating a present intention to do
a particular act in the immediate future, made in apparent
good faith and not for self-serving purposes, is admissible to prove
that the act was in fact performed.'" State v. Newson, 898
S.W.2d 710, 716 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (quoting Lewis v.
Lowe & Campbell Athletic Goods Co., 247 S.W.2d 800, 804 (Mo.
1952)) (emphasis added). SeealsoState v.
Buckner, 810 S.W.2d 354, 358 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) ("A
declaration that indicates a present intention to do a particular
act in the immediate future, relevant to a fact in issue, is
admissible to prove that the act was in fact performed.") (emphasis
added).
Here, there is no indication of bad faith or self-serving ambition
in Mr. Valencia's statements to Ms. Sheridan that he intended to
confront Mr. Rios about whether he was married and that if Mr. Rios
did not make his ticket go away that he was going to the Columbia
Police Department to inform them of a "secret." Nevertheless, while
both statements do indicate an intention on Mr. Valencia's part to
perform a particular act, the statements do not indicate that Mr.
Valencia intended to perform the acts in the immediate future.
"Immediate" is defined as "acting or being without the intervention
of another object, cause, or agency," or "near to or related to the
present." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 578 (10th
ed. 2000).
That the statement be made in "immediate" proximity to the time the
declarant intends to perform the act in order for the statement to
be admissible under the future act exception is illustrated by this
court's decision in Newson. In that case, Andrea Jones
lived with Terry Newson for approximately one year. Newson,
898 S.W.2d at 712. One evening while Ms. Jones was talking on
the telephone to Jacqueline Brooks, Mr. Newson came home. Id.
Prior to that evening, Ms. Jones had confided in Ms. Brooks that on
several occasions she had asked Mr. Newson to leave the house, but
that he had not done so. Id. Upon Mr. Newson's return
home, Ms. Jones told Ms. Brooks that she was getting off the
telephone to tell Mr. Newson to leave one more time. Id.
Ms. Brooks never heard from Ms. Jones again. Id. Four
days later, also after failing to reach Ms. Jones, Doris Houston, Ms.
Jones's mother, went to Ms. Jones's house. Id. Ms.
Houston eventually discovered her daughter's dead body in her bed. Id. at 713. This court held that Ms. Jones's statement
that she was getting off the telephone to tell Mr. Newson to leave
was admissible as a statement "'indicating a present intention to do
a particular act in the immediate future.'" Id. at
716 (emphasis added). In other words, the statement was
admissible because Ms. Jones's statement indicated that immediately,
upon hanging up the telephone with Ms. Brooks, she was going to tell
Mr. Newson to leave.
Similarly, this court's decision in Lewis also
illustrates the requirement that to be admissible the statement must
be of an intention to do an act in the immediate future.(FN4)
In that case, Russell Lewis was killed in an automobile accident
between 3:30 and 4:00 a.m. on October 2, 1949. Lewis,
247 S.W.2d at 801. The Industrial Commission of Missouri,
Division of Workmen's Compensation, ruled in favor of Mr. Lewis's
widow and against Mr. Lewis's employer and found that he was "'on a
trip for his employer' and that the accident arose out of and in the
course of his employment." Id. On appeal, the question
was whether a statement made by Mr. Lewis to his wife on the evening
before he left on his trip regarding the purpose of the trip was
admissible. Id. at 803. Specifically, on the evening
before Mr. Lewis left on his trip, he told his wife that "he would
have to leave early the next morning; that it was necessary because
they had some unfinished work down at Potosi that needed to be
finished; [and] that they were meeting early to have a hunt at that
same time[.]" Id. Before retiring that evening, Mr.
Lewis set his alarm clock for 3:00 a.m. and was ready to
leave at 3:30 a.m. Id. He was in the fatal
accident sometime between 3:30 and 4:00 a.m. Id.
The Court held that Mr. Lewis's statements to his wife, indicating
Mr. Lewis's intention to "'do a particular act in the immediate
furture [sic],'" were admissible. Id. at 804 (citation
omitted). Moreover, the Court specifically found that Mr. Lewis's
statements "were not so remote from the contemplated trip that we
may say as a matter of law they had no probative value." Id.
at 806.
Here, the statements made by Mr. Valencia did not indicate that Mr.
Valenica intended to perform any acts in the immediate future. The
first statement regarding Mr. Valencia's intention to confront Mr.
Rios about whether he was married was made on June 2, three days
prior to Mr. Valencia's murder. In addition, at the time Mr.
Valencia made the statement, Mr. Valencia told Ms. Sheridan that
while he thought that Mr. Rios would be coming over to his apartment
that evening, Mr. Valencia would pretend that he was sleeping and
not answer the door when Mr. Rios knocked. Thus, at the time Mr.
Valencia made the statement, Mr. Valencia had no "immediate" intent
of confronting Mr. Rios about his marital status but, rather, the
opposite; Mr. Valencia's statement suggested that he would not
see Mr. Rios in the immediate future.
Moreover, Mr. Valencia's statement, "I'm really going to ask him
this time if he's married or not," suggests that Mr. Valencia
had contemplated asking Mr. Rios this question on a prior occasion
but had failed to do so. (Emphasis added.) Statements of intention
to perform a future act in the immediate future are "'relevant to
show that the act was probably done as planned.'" Lewis,
247 S.W.2d at 804 (citation omitted). Because Mr. Valencia's
statement suggested that he contemplated taking such an act on a
previous occasion but did not actually follow through with his
intention further demonstrates the danger of admitting hearsay
statements that are too remote in time. The more remote in time a
stated action is intended to be taken, the longer the time period
that exists for the person to change their mind and not actually
follow through with their stated intention. See Douglas D.
McFarland, Dead Men Tell Tales: Thirty Times Three Years of the
Judicial Process After Hillmon, 30 Vill. L. Rev. 1, 16,
22, 32, 57 (1985) (discussing dangers of Hillmon
doctrine and noting the "ever-present possibility" that a person's
intention to do a future act is easily hindered or frustrated). Thus,
statements that do not indicate an intention to act immediately
inherently lack trustworthiness to show that that declarant actually
followed through with their stated intention. Consequently, the
trial court erred in admitting the statement Mr. Valencia allegedly
made that he was going to ask Mr. Rios if he was married because it
did not indicate an intent to do so in the immediate future and,
therefore, does not fall within any recognized hearsay exception.(FN5)
Similarly, Mr. Valencia's second statement about confronting Mr.
Rios about making his ticket go away or else he was going to go to
the Columbia Police Department to inform them about a "secret" also
lacks a present intention to perform a stated act in the immediate
future. Mr. Valencia was arraigned on the charges on May 20th. Ms.
Sheridan testified that Mr. Valencia made this statement sometime
around May 20th, which was over two weeks prior to Mr. Valencia's
murder. Moreover, Mr. Valencia's statement, "If he doesn't get this
ticket taken away . . . he had a little secret that he thought the
Columbia Police Department might like to know," does not expressly
indicate that Mr. Valencia intended to actually confront Mr.
Rios about the ticket. Rather, the only "act" Mr. Valencia's
statement indicates that he intended to take was to inform the
Columbia Police Department about a "secret." In addition, Mr.
Valencia's statement on June 2, after the statement regarding the
ticket was made, suggested that Mr. Rios was planning on seeing Mr.
Valencia that evening and Mr. Valencia no longer appeared concerned
about the ticket. Thus, because Mr. Valencia's statement regarding
the ticket did not indicate intent on Mr. Valencia's part to perform
an immediate act in the future, it did not fall within the future
acts exception and, therefore, it was inadmissible hearsay and the
trial court clearly abused its discretion in admitting the statement.
The fact that the trial court erred in admitting both statements,
however, does not necessarily mandate reversal. A conviction will be
reversed for the erroneous admission of evidence "only if the error
was so prejudicial that it deprived [Mr. Rios] of a fair trial."
Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 223-24. Here, the State offered Mr.
Valencia's statements for the purpose of showing Mr. Valencia's
intent to perform a future act, i.e., confront Mr. Rios about his
marital status and his ticket. Based on this evidence, the State
argued that the jury should draw the inference that Mr. Valencia did
in fact carry out his stated intentions, did confront Mr. Rios about
being married and getting his ticket fixed and, therefore, provided
Mr. Rios with a motive to kill Mr. Valencia.
Specifically, during closing statements, the State argued:
Motive is important in this case. The
motive was to close the mouth of Jesse Valencia forever.
Look at the power Steven Rios gave Jesse Valencia when
Steven Rios started having the affair with him. He gave
Jesse Valencia the power over his police career, he gave
Jesse Valencia the power over his marriage, he gave Jesse
Valencia the power over his political aspirations. His whole
life was turned over to Jesse Valencia's discretion. Whether
Jesse Valencia was going to keep this secret or tell
somebody.
And look at what John -- Joan Sheridan told you. This is the
exact quote of what Jesse Valencia had said to her on June
2nd, just three days before his death, when he's talking
about the confrontation he's planning on having the next
time the police officer comes over. He said, quote, I'm
really going to ask him this time if he's married, because
if he's married, I don't want to be involved in a
relationship with a married man, close quote.
That's what happened. The night Steven Rios went by for his
usual quickie, Jesse confronted him. And the first time that
Jesse got in trouble when he confronted him is when he got
arrested and got the handcuffs put on. This time when Jesse
confronted him, Jesse was killed.
The other thing was that Joan Sheridan told you about
Jesse's thinking about how he's going to expose this secret
affair if his ticket didn't go away. He had said, If the
officer didn't get the ticket taken away, he had a little
secret that he thought the Columbia Police Department might
want to know. That's the exact quote from Joan Sheridan,
when he was -- when she was on the stand.
That Jesse was mad, because when he had gone to court on the
20th, not only did his ticket not go away, but, as Rose
Wibbenmeyer explained, it had become a little worse, because
now it was alleging force involved. So he was mad and he was
going to confront the officer. And he did confront him. And
look what happened.
Because the State utilized the erroneous admission of the statements
to establish a motive for Mr. Valencia's murder, Mr. Rios was
sufficiently prejudiced by the trial court's err in admitting the
hearsay statements that he was deprived of a fair trial.
Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 223-24. Without the hearsay
statements, there exists a reasonable possibility that the outcome
of the trial would have been different. Id. at 224. Mr.
Rios's first point is granted.
III. Admission of State's Exhibits
In his second, third, and fourth points on appeal, Mr. Rios claims
error in the admission of numerous State exhibits, including
photographs of Mr. Valencia's body taken at the crime scene and
during the autopsy (point two), a Spyderco clip knife purchased by
the Columbia Police Department for trial (point three), and
photographs of Mr. Valencia taken at a party on the morning that he
was murdered (point four). Because this court is reversing the trial
court's judgment on the basis of prejudicial error in the admission
of Mr. Valencia's statements, the alleged errors argued by Mr. Rios
in his additional points on appeal may be obviated by a new trial.
To the extent the issues would recur in a new trial, they will be
briefly addressed below.
a. Crime Scene and Autopsy Photographs
In his second point on appeal, Mr. Rios claims that the trial court
abused its discretion in admitting forty-seven gruesome photographs
of the victim's body taken at the scene of the crime and during the
autopsy. Mr. Rios contends that admission of the photographs, over
his objection, was error because the photographs were irrelevant,
duplicative, designed to inflame the passions of the jury, and the
probative value of the photographs was outweighed by their
prejudicial effect.
"The trial court is vested with broad discretion in the admission of
photographs." State v. Rousan, 961 S.W.2d 831, 844 (Mo.
banc 1998). A relevant photograph "should not be excluded from
evidence unless its prejudicial effect is greater than its probative
value." Id. Mr. Rios first argues that all of the
photographs were irrelevant because there was no dispute that the
cause of death was an incised wound to the neck and none of the
photographs assisted the jury in deciding the only contested issue,
that being whether Mr. Rios murdered Mr. Valencia. Contrary to Mr.
Rios's argument, however, even if the cause of death is known, "[p]hotographs
are relevant if they show the scene of the crime, the identity of
the victim, the nature and extent of the wounds, the cause of death,
the condition and location of the body, or otherwise constitute
proof of an element of the crime or assist the jury in understanding
the testimony." Id.
Here, the challenged photographs can be divided into two categories,
those taken at the scene of the crime and those taken at the medical
examiner's office before and during the autopsy. The crime scene
photographs consisted of State's Exhibits 16-17, 19-21, and 23-30.
Each of these pictures depicted either Mr. Valencia's body,
including his wounds, or the blood soaked ground directly underneath
where Mr. Valencia's body was initially discovered. On several of
the photographs, flies are seen on Mr. Valencia's wounds. Each of
these photographs demonstrated either the scene of the crime, the
nature and extent of Mr. Valencia's wounds, or the condition and
location of Mr. Valencia's body when it was discovered. Consequently,
each of the crime scene photographs was relevant. Id.
The photographs taken at the medical examiner's office consisted of
State's Exhibits 31-34, 36-38, and 41-67. These exhibits were taken
either before or during the autopsy. All of the exhibits were
photographs of Mr. Valencia's wounds, with the exception of Exhibit
31, which was a photograph of the body bag with evidence tape across
the zipper, and Exhibits 50-54, which were photographs of Mr.
Valencia's hands, which were uninjured. Thus, each of these
photographs, with the noted exceptions, demonstrated to the jury the
nature and extent of Mr. Valencia's injuries. Therefore, the
photographs were relevant. Id. Regarding Exhibit 31,
the photograph of the body bag, the photograph was relevant to
demonstrate the chain of evidence. Exhibits 50-54, the photographs
of Mr. Valencia's uninjured hands, were relevant to prove the
State's theory of the case, that being, that Mr. Valencia was
rendered unconscious before his throat was slit based on the absence
of defensive wounds to Mr. Valencia's hands. Thus, each of the
photographs taken in the medical examiner's office was clearly
relevant.
Nevertheless, Mr. Rios argues that even if the photographs were
relevant, that some of the photographs should not have been admitted
for various reasons, including that they were duplicative,
cumulative, and "unnecessarily gruesome." "'Photographs, although
gruesome, may be admitted where they show the nature and location of
the wounds, where they enable the jury to better understand the
testimony, and where they aid in establishing any element of the
state's case.'" State v. Davis, 107 S.W.3d 410, 422 (Mo.
App. W.D. 2003) (citation omitted). Moreover, to the extent that
"photographs tend to be shocking or gruesome, it is almost always
because the crime is shocking or gruesome." Rousan, 961
S.W.2d at 844. This court has reviewed the entire forty-seven
photographs challenged by Mr. Rios and, while the photographs are
disturbing to view, the majority show either no injuries to parts of
Mr. Valencia's body (e.g., Exhibits 50-54 are photographs of Mr.
Valencia's hands, which contain no injuries), or show minor
abrasions or bruising on various parts of Mr. Valencia's body (e.g.,
Exhibits 43-49, 55-67). The trial court did not abuse its discretion
in admitting all of the photographs. On retrial, however, if the
same objections are made, the trial court can revisit the question
whether any of the photographs are unnecessarily duplicative or
cumulative.
b. Admission of Spyderco Clip Knife
In his third point on appeal, Mr. Rios asserts that the trial court
abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce, over
objection, a Spyderco clip knife purchased by the Columbia Police
Department for demonstrative purposes at trial. Mr. Rios claims that
the admission of the knife was highly prejudicial because the knife
had no connection to the crime or to him, it was irrelevant to any
issue in the case, and the admission of the knife carried an undue
risk of confusing the jury. Because the State is likely to attempt
to offer the knife on retrial, the merits of this point will be
addressed.
"'The courts of this state, with notable consistency have recognized
that weapons unconnected with either the accused or the offense for
which he is standing trial lack any probative value and their
admission into evidence is inherently prejudicial and constitutes
reversible error.'" State v. Grant, 810 S.W.2d 591, 592 (Mo.
App. S.D. 1991) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, the Missouri
Supreme Court has held that "[t]here is no absolute rule that
demonstrative evidence of a weapon unconnected with the defendant or
offense charged is inadmissible." State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d
662, 667 (Mo. banc 1995). Rather, demonstrative evidence,
including a weapon, is admissible if it is relevant, is a fair
representation of what it is offered to show, and there is no
likelihood that the exhibit could deceive or mislead the jury.
Id. at 667-68. Demonstrative evidence is relevant if it
is "probative of a material issue in the case." Id. at 668.
Moreover, "[t]he trial judge occupies a superior vantage point for
balancing probative value and prejudicial effect of demonstrative
evidence." Id. at 669. "Thus, the trial judge is
necessarily vested with broad discretion in admitting or rejecting
such evidence." Id.
In this case, the actual murder weapon was never located.
Nevertheless, the State established, through the testimony of the
medical examiner, that a knife had probably caused the fatal wound
and, based on the particular pattern of the wound, there was "some
degree of serration" in the knife. The State further established
that Mr. Rios carried a "clip knife" with a serrated blade.
Specifically, Officer Roger Schlude testified that before beginning
his shift one day in January 2004, while sharpening his own knife in
the briefing room, Mr. Rios asked Officer Schlude to borrow his
sharpening stone to sharpen his knife. Officer Schlude noticed that
Mr. Rios's knife was a clip knife with a black handle and a serrated
blade. Officer Schlude told Mr. Rios that his sharpening stone would
not work on Mr. Rios's knife because the stone was not designed for
a serrated blade. Based on the description of Mr. Rios's knife
provided by Officer Schlude, investigators created a sketch of Mr.
Rios's clip knife. The investigators purchased the Spyderco clip
knife introduced into evidence based on the description of Mr.
Rios's knife provided by Officer Schlude.
In addition, the State established through the testimony of several
other witnesses that Mr. Rios carried a clip knife. For example,
Officer Sean Moore, who worked with Mr. Rios, testified that he saw
Mr. Rios carrying a clip knife both while in and out of uniform.
Officer Moore testified that the Spyderco knife was consistent with
the type of knife that he has seen Mr. Rios carry. Officers Harlon
Hatton, Jason Baillargeon, and Justin LaForest also testified that
they had seen Mr. Rios carrying a clip knife consistent with the
Spyderco knife exhibit. Moreover, the medical examiner testified
that the Spyderco knife was consistent with the instrument that had
been used to cut Mr. Valencia's throat.
Finally, when the trial court overruled Mr. Rios's objection to
admission of the Spyderco knife, the court instructed that the
exhibit was "admitted for the sole purpose of a demonstrative
exhibit" and that it was "in no way to be considered by this jury as
anything to do with the murder weapon that might have been used in
this case." Moreover, during closing argument, the State did not
argue that the Spyderco knife was in any way connected to either Mr.
Rios or the murder. Rather, the State argued that the actual knife
used to kill Mr. Valencia was missing. Specifically, the State
argued, "the murder weapon was successfully hidden by Steven Rios.
It's somewhere in the river; somewhere in a storm sewer. We don't
know where it is, because he got rid of it." Finally, defense
counsel argued during closing statements that the State did not have
a murder weapon but, rather, the State went and bought a "knife and
put it into evidence" and the knife that they bought "[d]oesn't have
any connection to this case." Moreover, defense counsel continued:
It's a knife, a Spyderco knife, because
that's the information they got. But it could just as well
be some other kind of knife that you buy at Wal-Mart, that
has serrated edges. Anybody could buy a knife like that. The
state just went out and bought it and put it in evidence.
That knife has -- doesn't have anything to do with anything
in this case.
Thus, given the trial court's instruction and the statements made by
both the State and defense counsel during closing argument, the jury
could not have been deceived or misled into believing that the
specific Spyderco knife admitted in evidence had any connection to
either Mr. Rios or the murder of Mr. Valencia.
In sum, the State presented evidence that Mr. Valencia's throat was
slit with a knife that had a serrated edge. The serrated Spyderco
clip knife purchased by the State in this case was proved to be
consistent with a knife seen in Mr. Rios's possession by a number of
different police officers. Because the murder weapon was never found,
however, the Spyderco clip knife, which was representative of the
type of knife that several witnesses testified they saw in Mr.
Rios's possession, was relevant to establishing that Mr. Rios had
access to a type of weapon that could have caused the fatal wound to
Mr. Valencia. SeeSilvey, 894 S.W.2d at 669. In
addition, given the trial court's instruction and argument made by
both the State and defense counsel, the jury could not have been
misled into believing that the Spyderco clip knife admitted into
evidence at trial was actually connected to either Mr. Rios or Mr.
Valencia's murder. Thus, given the trial court's "superior vantage
point for balancing probative value and prejudicial effect of
demonstrative evidence," this court cannot say that the trial court
abused its discretion in admitting the Spyderco clip knife. Id.
Whether the knife is admissible on retrial will depend on whether
the State meets the proper foundational requirements for admission
of demonstrative evidence as set forth above.
c. Admission of Photographs of Victim at Party
In his fourth point on appeal, Mr. Rios asserts that the trial court
abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce two
photographs of the victim taken at a party on the morning he was
murdered. On appeal, Mr. Rios claims that the photographs were
irrelevant, were used to arouse the passions and sympathy of the
jury, and any probative value the photographs may have had was
overwhelmed by their prejudicial effect. In particular, Mr. Rios
argues that the prosecutor used the photographs so that, in closing
argument, the State could continually refer to Mr. Valencia as "this
boy" because in the pictures, Mr. Valencia appeared younger than his
actual age of twenty-three.
At trial, the State attempted to introduce three photographs (Exhibits
1, 2, and 3) taken by Ms. Witherspoon of Mr. Valencia at the party
Mr. Valencia attended on the morning he was murdered. Exhibit 1 was
a photograph of Mr. Valencia playing the drums and looking into the
camera. Exhibit 2 was a photograph of Mr. Valencia looking at the
camera with a plastic glass in his hand.(FN6)
Mr. Rios objected to the admission of all three photographs as being
cumulative. In his motion for new trial, however, Mr. Rios argued
that the admission of Exhibits 1 and 2 "were irrelevant to the facts
of this case, cumulative, and prejudicial." On appeal, he argues
that the photographs were "irrelevant to any issue to be decided in
this case, were used to around [sic] the passions and sympathy of
the jury, and any probative value the photographs may have had was
overwhelmed by their prejudicial effect."
"[T]o preserve a point for appellate review, the point raised on
appeal must be based upon the theory of the objection as made at the
trial and as preserved in the motion for new trial." State v.
Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 94, 108 n.7 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004). "Nothing
is preserved for appellate review when the assignments of error in a
motion for new trial and on appeal are enlargements of a general
objection made at the time of trial." Id. Thus, review
of Mr. Rios's claim is for plain error only. State v. Phillips,
939 S.W.2d 502, 505 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). Because this court
reverses on other grounds, review of Mr. Rios's fourth point for
plain error need not be considered since the issue is unlikely to
arise in the same context on retrial.
The trial court's judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for
a new trial.
All concur.
*****
Footnotes:
FN1.
All statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri
2000.
FN2. Mr. Valencia was a twenty-three year old college student
at the time.
FN3. Mr. Rios presented evidence that the officer's written
report indicated that only one hair was collected as evidence and
failed to note that as many as six to ten hairs were actually
collected from Mr. Valencia's body, placed in an evidence box, and
sealed by the officer. In addition, Criminalist William Randle, who
tested the trace evidence submitted by the Columbia Police
Department in the box the officer had sealed, testified that after
he slit the tape on both sides of the box with a razor blade, he
noticed that one of the flaps on the side of the box was pushed all
the way to the bottom indicating that the box had been opened.
FN4. SeealsoBuckner, 810 S.W.2d at 357-59
(finding admissible, under the future acts exception, statement made
by murder victim forty-five minutes prior to murder to
demonstrate why victim returned home to meet the defendant for drug
deal).
FN5. Moreover, while Mr. Valencia's statement did indicate
that Mr. Valencia was going to ask Mr. Rios if he was married, the
thrust of his statement went to Mr. Valencia's state of mind, i.e.,
"if he's married, I don't want to be involved in a
relationship with a married man." (Emphasis added.) As discussed
above, statements regarding a victim's state of mind are admissible
only when the defendant has put the decedent's mental state at issue
by claiming accident, self-defense, or suicide, which is not the
case here. Nastasio, 957 S.W.2d at 458. Consequently,
that portion of Mr. Valencia's statement regarding his desire not to
be involved in a relationship with a married man is inadmissible
hearsay that does not fall within any hearsay exception. And, by
excluding the portion of Mr. Valencia's statement regarding his
desire not to have a relationship with a married man, that portion
of his statement indicating an intent to perform a future act, i.e.,
"I'm really going to ask him this time if he's married or not," has
no context and is irrelevant.
FN6. The trial court sustained the objection to Exhibit 3,
but overruled the objection regarding Exhibits 1 and 2 and,
therefore, the two photographs were admitted into evidence.