State v. Gomez

399 Mont. 376

460 P.3d 926

2020 MT 73

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Emmanuel F. GOMEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

DA 17-0470

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: January 8, 2020

Decided: March 31, 2020

For Appellant: Robin Meguire, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, Montana

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Brad Fjeldheim, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Kirsten H. Pabst, Missoula County Attorney, Missoula, Montana

Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Emmanuel F. Gomez appeals from the February 6, 2017 verdict of a Missoula County jury, finding him guilty of one count of Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA), a misdemeanor violation of § 45-5-206(1)(a), MCA, and one count of Deliberate Homicide, a felony violation of § 45-5-102, MCA. Gomez raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether the District Court properly denied Gomez’s motion to sever the counts;

2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence of the victim’s drug use and denied Gomez’s motion for a new trial;

3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion admitting numerous out-of-court statements from the deceased victim; and

4. Whether Gomez is entitled to a new trial due to cumulative error.

¶2 We affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶3On January 13, 2016, the State charged Gomez with one count of PFMA as a continuing course of conduct from January 1, 2015 through December 20, 2015, and one count of deliberate homicide. Police arrested Gomez on December 24, 2015, for PFMA after Charlie Wyrick was reported missing. After a four-day search, Wyrick’s frozen body was found down a steep ravine off the side of the road in Pattee Canyon on December 27, 2015. She had a single stab wound to the chest. During an interrogation on December 28, Gomez told detectives Wyrick’s death was an accident.

¶4 Gomez filed numerous pretrial motions, including a motion to suppress his pretrial confession, a motion to admit defense expert testimony regarding Gomez’s state of mind at the time of the crime, a motion to sever the two counts, a motion to admit evidence of the victim’s methamphetamine use, and a motion to exclude hearsay statements made by the victim. Given his prior confession to detectives, Gomez indicated he would be pursuing an accident defense in his pretrial motions. All of Gomez’s pretrial motions were argued based on an accident defense.

¶5 The court addressed each of Gomez’s pretrial motions. First, determining Gomez failed to meet his burden to demonstrate prejudice from their joinder, the court declined to sever the charges. Regarding Gomez’s motion to allow expert testimony from a mental health evaluator, opining on his state of mind at the time of Wyrick’s death, the court determined that it would allow his evaluator to testify concerning her evaluation and diagnosis of Gomez, but she could not testify about whether Gomez acted with purpose or knowledge at the time of Wyrick’s death. Further, the court instructed that the evaluator could not provide the jury with Gomez’s explanation of Wyrick’s stabbing and its aftermath. Next, the court suppressed Gomez’s pretrial confession, determining officers violated Gomez’s Fifth Amendment rights by interrogating Gomez on December 28 without the presence of counsel after Gomez had previously invoked his right to counsel when detectives interrogated him about Wyrick’s whereabouts on December 24. The court, however, determined the State could use Gomez’s statement as impeachment evidence if Gomez took the stand.

¶6 In response to Gomez’s motion to exclude hearsay testimony from the victim, the State supplied the court with a spreadsheet outlining over one hundred out-of-court statements from Wyrick it intended to elicit from its witnesses. At a brief hearing to discuss the proffered testimony, both parties agreed the District Court would need to wait until trial to rule on Gomez’s individual objections in the context of the testimony elicited. In a pretrial order, the District Court outlined the framework it would use to rule on hearsay objections during trial. Finally, on the day before trial, the court issued its order, denying Gomez’s motion to admit evidence of the victim’s methamphetamine use. The court explained the victim’s drug use was not a pertinent character trait and as such, the evidence was improper character evidence and its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

¶7 The State called thirty-nine witnesses at trial, including various friends and family members of Wyrick, Wyrick’s coworkers, six medical professionals, four of Gomez’s roommates and a roommate’s girlfriend, officers and detectives involved in the case, as well as the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, two lab technicians who tested blood recovered from Gomez’s house and vehicle, and a records custodian from AT&T. During trial, Gomez’s counsel indicated Gomez may pursue any of several different defenses including Wyrick’s death was an accident, someone else was involved in her killing, or the State failed to meet its burden of proof. In the end, the defense closed without putting on any additional evidence and argued the State had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gomez had deliberately killed Wyrick.

¶8 At trial multiple friends, family, and coworkers of Wyrick testified she first began dating Gomez sometime in early 2015. They recounted that after she began dating Gomez, she regularly had bruising on her face, neck, and arms, and she had bald patches on her head, like chunks of her hair had been pulled out. Longtime friends and a cousin explained that as Wyrick’s relationship with Gomez progressed, her contact with them substantially decreased or ceased altogether. They described Wyrick as withdrawn and depressed after she started dating Gomez. Maghan Radcliff, the girlfriend of Wyrick’s brother Maxwell Straight, explained Wyrick was happy and bubbly when she first met her, but this changed when she was around Gomez. Radcliff described one incident during the summer of 2015 in which she picked Wyrick up to go shopping and a white Toyota Avalon, which she identified as one of Gomez’s two vehicles, followed them. She explained this occurred at a time when Wyrick and Gomez were briefly broken up. She pulled into a gas station to lose the vehicle. Later in the day, the same vehicle reappeared. She zigged and zagged trying to lose the vehicle again.

¶9 Karen Fairclough, the store manager at Pattee Creek Market, testified she hired Wyrick to work in the deli of Pattee Creek Market on September 12, 2015. Fairclough noted that over the three months Wyrick worked at the market, her demeanor changed, and she became quieter and kept to herself more. Other coworkers noted Wyrick’s demeanor would change when Gomez came into the store. The deli supervisor Steven Weare testified Gomez would hang around the market from time to time but would never interact with anyone but Wyrick. He noticed Gomez hanging around especially on paydays. As soon as paychecks were available, Wyrick would take a break and leave with Gomez, even if she had just started her shift. He thought Wyrick seemed anxious when Gomez was in the store, especially on paydays.

¶10 Fairclough and Weare testified Wyrick missed work at the end of October because she had a concussion. Wyrick informed Fairclough she had fallen down some steps. Wyrick told another coworker she had fallen in the driveway and a third coworker she had slipped on some ice. Multiple coworkers testified they saw Wyrick with a black eye. Wyrick visited the emergency room for her head injury on October 26, 2015, where she saw Dr. Greg Kazemi. Dr. Kazemi testified Wyrick told him she had fallen and injured her nose on the morning of October 25. Wyrick had a laceration over her nose and bruising in both eyes. Dr. Kazemi testified he did not order an x-ray to determine whether Wyrick’s nose was broken because the management of Wyrick’s injuries would be the same regardless whether her nose was broken or not. Dr. Kazemi diagnosed her with a nasal laceration and mild concussion. He explained a broken nose can cause two black eyes.

¶11 Dr. Kevin Eichhorn testified he saw Gomez in the emergency room on October 25, 2015—the date Wyrick reported to Dr. Kazemi as the day she had sustained her head injuries. Gomez came into the emergency room with a hand injury. He told Dr. Eichhorn he was working on his car the night before at 2 a.m. and the hood fell and slammed onto his hand. Dr. Eichhorn diagnosed Gomez with a "boxer’s fracture." Dr. Eichhorn explained it is called a boxer’s fracture because the most common mechanism for the injury is from punching something, but the injury could be consistent with a car hood slamming on the hand.

¶12 Wyrick followed up with her family medicine physician, Dr. Katherine Krebsbach, on October 30, 2015, with residual symptoms from her head injury. Wyrick told Dr. Krebsbach she had hit her face on a staircase about a week prior and had gone into the emergency room on October 26, 2015. Dr. Krebsbach explained Wyrick had scabbing over the front of her nose, some bruising on her face, and was physically tired. Dr. Krebsbach diagnosed Wyrick with post-concussive syndrome and provided her with a note to excuse her from work. Dr. Krebsbach also saw Gomez on November 24, 2015, when he came in for follow-up on his broken hand. Gomez told Dr. Krebsbach he had smashed it in the hood of his car a month earlier. At the time, she did not know Gomez and Wyrick were in a relationship and his explanation seemed consistent with his injury. Dr. Krebsbach testified, however, looking back on the two injuries now gave her significant pause. She explained that boxer’s fracture most commonly occurs when someone punches something hard and Gomez’s injuries presented around the same time Wyrick injured her nose.

¶13 Fairclough testified she brought...