State v. Redmond

686 S.W.3d 333

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Martin REDMOND, Appellant.

No. ED 111336

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: March 12, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Cause No. 1922-CR00386, Honorable Christopher E. McGraugh, Judge

FOR APPELLANT: Kristina S. Olson, 1010 Market St Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Andrew Bailey, Julia E. Rives, PO BOX 899, Jefferson City, Mo 65102.

Renée D. Hardin-Tammons, J.

Introduction

Appellant Martin Redmond ("Appellant") appeals the trial court’s judgment, following a jury trial, finding him guilty of the class A felony of murder in the first degree, § 565.020¹ and the unclassified felony of armed criminal action, § 571.015. In his first point on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motions for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to establish the deliberation required to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the first degree. In his second point on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court clearly erred in denying his motion in limine regarding evidence that implicated him of committing an uncharged crime. In his third point on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court clearly erred in denying his request for a mistrial. In his fourth point on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court clearly erred in denying his request to submit a voluntary manslaughter instruction to the jury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural Background²

Following a mistrial from a hung jury and a subsequent jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of first-degree murder and one count of armed criminal action. The trial court sentenced Appellant to concurrent life imprisonment terms as a prior and persistent felony offender. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on January 13, 2023.

On July 23, 2018 Appellant’s cousin argued with Witness 1 over the telephone in the presence of Victim, who took the phone from Witness 1 and told Appellant’s cousin to stop calling. Later, Appellant, Appellant’s cousin, and R.W. drove up to Witness 1’s house in a black Chevy Impala. Witness 1 and Appellant’s cousin spoke outside of the house before Appellant, Appellant’s cousin, and R.W. drove away. Within a few minutes, Victim began walking to a nearby corner store with Witness 1 following close behind him. Witness 1 saw a black Chevy Impala drive up to the corner store where a crowd was gathered. Witness 1 watched Appellant and R.W. exit the vehicle and walk through the crowd, bumping into Victim. Witness 1 then saw Appellant shoot Victim five times as Victim was smoking a cigarette with Witness 2. R.W. then approached Victim and took a satchel from Victim’s person. Appellant and R.W. fled the scene in the black Chevy Impala, with bystanders shooting in the air or at the fleeing vehicle. The vehicle stopped and Appellant momentarily exited and fired five more shots in the direction of the crowd and Victim before speeding off. A forensic examiner testified that Victim died from his gunshot wounds.

Witnesses 1 and 2 recounted the above events to the responding police officers, informing them that Appellant was responsible for the shooting, that he had fled in a black Chevy Impala, and that he lived nearby.

A few hours later, at approximately 7:18 p.m., Appellant’s sister reported that her black Chevy Impala had been stolen between 3:30 and 3:35 p.m. earlier that day. Police found the vehicle that evening, parked 200 feet away from Appellant’s sister’s home.

Appellant was arrested and interviewed by the police. He first denied being at the scene of the crime and denied any knowledge of the shooting, and then stated that he could not remember whether he or R.W. were there, before eventually admitting that he and R.W. were present. Without providing any details, Appellant maintained that his sister had gotten into a fight and that he and R.W. were defending her, but he denied any involvement in the shooting. Appellant told the police that he, R.W., and his sister had left the scene in a black Chevy Impala.

While one of the officers was testifying at trial, Appellant interrupted the proceeding by cursing and yelling in the presence of the jury.

Following Appellant’s outburst, the trial court paused the proceedings for a recess; Appellant was placed in a holding cell to "cool off." During the recess, Appellant’s attorney requested a mistrial, which the trial court denied. Appellant agreed to go forward without any further disruptions, and the court resumed the trial after the recess without incident. The record does not reflect that Appellant was visibly hand-cuffed or shackled at any point in the trial.

Appellant did not put on any evidence at trial after the State rested. The court instructed the jury on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and involuntary manslaughter, denying Appellant’s request to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter after finding that the evidence was insufficient to support a contention that Victim or someone acting on Victim’s behalf had provoked Appellant to give him adequate cause to kill. Appellant raised the four issues alleged herein in his motion for a new trial, which the court denied. This appeal follows.

Point I

[1, 2] Appellant first argues that the State failed to prove that he acted with deliberation when he killed Victim. Appellate review of claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to determining "whether the state has introduced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Hosier, 454 S.W.3d 883, 898 (Mo. banc 2015). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, allowing for all favorable inferences and disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. Reasonable inferences may be drawn from direct and circumstantial evidence. Id. at 412-13. We will not weigh evidence anew, as "the fact-finder may believe all, some, or none of the testimony of a witness when considered with the facts, circumstances and other testimony in the case." State v. Perkins, 600 S.W.3d 838, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (internal citations omitted).

[3, 4] "A person commits the offense of murder in the first degree if he or she knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter." Section 565.020.1. "Deliberation" is defined as "cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief." Section 565.002(3); State v. Drisdel, 417 S.W.3d 773, 788 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (citing State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681, 687 (Mo. banc 2010)). "[T]he element of deliberation selves to ensure that the jury believes the defendant acted deliberately, consciously and not reflexively." Perkins, 600 S.W.3d at 846-47 (quoting State v. Nathan, 404 S.W.3d 253, 266 (Mo. banc 2013)). "Direct proof of a required mental state is seldom available, and the mental state may be proved by indirect evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the circumstances surrounding the slaying." Id. (quoting State v. Johns, 34 S.W.3d 93, 110 (Mo. banc 2000)).

[5, 6] Here, there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found that Appellant deliberated when he killed Victim. First, "[t]he act of aiming and intentionally firing a gun at a victim supports an inference of a ‘cool and deliberate state of mind.’ " State v. Mills, 623 S.W.3d 717, 725 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021), transfer denied (June 29, 2021) (citing State v. Morris, 844 S.W.2d 549, 551-52 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992)). The record reveals that Appellant walked up to Victim at the corner store, aimed his gun at Victim, and shot Victim in the face and neck. See State v. Alexander, 505 S.W.3d 384, 394 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (finding intent can be inferred from use of deadly weapon on a vital part of victim’s body).

[7] Second, an inference of deliberation "is supported by a lack of concern for and a failure to attempt to aid the victim." Perkins, 600 S.W.3d at 847 (citing Alexander, 505 S.W.3d at 393); see also State v. Sokolic, 660 S.W.3d 54, 59 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). Here, not only did Appellant not attempt to aid Victim when he immediately fled the scene after shooting Victim, but Appellant also temporarily halted his es- cape and fired his gun back towards Victim’s location.

Point I is denied.

Point II

Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that his sister reported her black Chevy Impala stolen shortly after the murder. Specifically, Appellant argues that this admission was in error because it was irrelevant to his guilt in that it (1) suggested to the jury that Appellant was involved in uncharged criminal activity and (2) involved his sister’s conduct, not his.

[8–12] We review claims challenging the admission of evidence for clear abuse of discretion. State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Mo. banc 2006). "A trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence at trial." Id. (citing State v. Madorie, 156 S.W.3d 351, 355 (Mo. banc 2005)). "A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration." State v. Thomas, 628 S.W.3d 686, 691 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). "We review the evidentiary ruling of the trial court ‘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. (quoting State v. Prince, 534 S.W.3d 813, 818 (Mo. banc 2017)). "In a criminal case involving improperly admitted evidence, the test for prejudice is whether the error was outcome-determinative." Id. (citing State v. Yung, 246 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008)).

[13–16] "The general rule concerning the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or acts is that evidence of prior uncharged misconduct is inadmissible...