State v. Scott

676 S.W.3d 336

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Samuel L. SCOTT, Appellant.

No. ED 110702

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: September 19, 2023

FOR APPELLANT: Maleaner R. Harvey, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Andrew Bailey, Gregory L. Barnes, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Thomas C. Clark, II, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and John P. Torbitzky, J.

OPINION

James M. Dowd, Judge Appellant Samuel L. Scott was convicted of first-degree murder, fourth-degree domestic assault, and violation of an order of protection after beating his wife M. J. to death on April 9, 2019, upon his release from jail that day in connection with a previous domestic assault on M.J. that he perpetrated on January 6, 2019.

In Points I and II, Scott asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence M.J.’s statement to police after the January 6 beating that Scott had told her he "should have finished what he started" since he knew M.J. was going to contact police. Scott argues this hearsay statement should not have been admitted in evidence because: (1) the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing was inapplicable in that the State failed to meet its burden to show that Scott's actions were for the purpose of preventing M.J. from testifying against him, and (2) the hearsay statement was not logically or legally relevant. In Point III, Scott alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of first-degree murder in that the State did not produce evidence of deliberation. We affirm.

Factual Background

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the relevant evidence is as follows.¹ Scott and M.J. had a tumultuous marriage. Scott verbally and physically abused M.J. on multiple occasions before the April 9, 2019, brutal beating from which she succumbed five days later.

Three instances of abuse appear in our record. On May 29, 2017, M.J. applied for an order of protection in which she averred, under oath, that Scott spit on her face, struck her chest, threatened to choke her, and then told her that he hoped she would have a heart attack and die. She went to the hospital where she was diagnosed with chest inflammation and right arm bruises. She further disclosed in her statement that she was afraid he would finish what he started. On April 10, 2018, M.J. applied for another order of protection in which she reported that Scott was mentally abusing her and that he needed mental help before he hurt her. Upon waking that morning, Scott had begun cursing M.J. and threatening to beat her or kill her if she tried to leave the house. She feared that if she said the wrong thing, he would kill her.

Another violent attack, which led to Scott's initial arrest, occurred on January 6, 2019. Scott became angry and hit M.J. in the face upon overhearing M.J. discuss with her daughter M.J.’s plans to move to Springfield, Missouri. M.J. went to St. Alexius Hospital in St. Louis City for medical treatment, where she requested to speak with a police officer. The officer noticed a red mark on her face. She repeated to the officer what Scott told her—that he should have finished what he started because he knew she was going to contact the police. The officer issued a "wanted" on Scott for the assault.²

On April 4, 2019, M.J. texted one of her daughters that she was scared of Scott and asked her to call the police to remove him from their home. Her other daughter called the police for a well-being check. The officer who responded to the scene testified that M.J. seemed withdrawn, scared, and nervous. After determining that Scott was wanted for fourth-degree domestic assault arising from the January 6 incident, the officer took Scott into custody for an interview during which Scott admitted that he slapped M.J. He was arrested and charged with fourth-degree domestic assault. While in the holding cell soon after his arrest and after another inmate asked him why he was in jail, Scott's angry response was: "that bitch put me in jail again."

The next day, April 5, the investigating officer found M.J. hesitant and fearful of Scott's impending release from jail. M.J. then applied for an order of protection which was granted on April 8, 2019. The order of protection referenced both the January 6 assault and the incident on April 4, in which Scott verbally abused and threatened M.J. M.J. swore in her application that her right ear remained painful from the January attack and that Scott had mentally and physically abused her for three years. She further requested that he not be allowed to enter their residence upon his release and asked that the order be renewed at the end of each year. On April 9, Scott was served with the order of protection then released from jail.

Later that evening, police and EMS responded to the couple's home where they found M.J. beaten, bloody, and unresponsive. In addition to a pool of blood in the living room, police found more blood in the living room, bedroom, on the front door, and up the staircase. The living room and bedroom also appeared to be in disarray as if there had been a struggle. Scott, who had left the scene, was arrested and taken into custody the next afternoon. While interviewing Scott, the police officer noticed cuts and abrasions on his knuckles. Scott told the officer "that's what happens when you punch somebody in the face."

On May 9, 2019, a grand jury indicted Scott for the charges at issue here. At trial, the State sought, pursuant to the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, to admit into evidence the January 6, 2018, statement M.J. made to the police officer that Scott had told her after he beat her that he "should have finished what he started." The court overruled Scott's objection and allowed the statement in evidence. On April 20, 2022, the jury convicted Scott of first-degree murder, fourth-degree domestic assault, and violation of an order of protection and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder and one year each for the assault and order of protection violation with all sentences ordered to run concurrently. This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

The standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion. State v. Henderson , 826 S.W.2d 371, 374 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992). A trial court has broad discretion in choosing to admit or deny evidence. Id. "An abuse of discretion is found when the decision to admit or exclude the challenged evidence is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration." State v. Barriner , 210 S.W.3d 285, 296 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and disregard facts and inferences to the contrary. Id. If we find that the trial court abused its discretion, we reverse only if the prejudice resulting from the improper admission is outcome-determinative. State v. McGee , 284 S.W.3d 690, 701 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). Whether a criminal defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the admission of evidence is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Buechting, 633 S.W.3d 367, 376 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021).

We review the denial of a motion for acquittal to determine if the State adduced sufficient evidence to make a submissible case. State v. Davis , 219 S.W.3d 863, 866 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007). When an appellant brings a sufficiency of evidence challenge, our review is limited to "whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as to each element of the crime. State v. Pike , 162 S.W.3d 464, 473 (Mo. banc 2005) ; State v. Parsons , 152 S.W.3d 898, 920 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005). This Court considers evidence, direct and circumstantial, including all its reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the judgment and disregards all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. at 473-74 (citing State v. Chaney , 967 S.W.2d 47, 52 (Mo. banc 1998) ).

Discussion

Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

Scott first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted over defense counsel's objection the January 6, 2019, hearsay statement M.J. made to a police officer after Scott beat her, that Scott had told her he "might as well finish what he started" since she was going to contact police. Scott argues that the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, upon which the trial court based its ruling, is inapplicable because there was no evidence that Scott murdered M.J. for the purpose of preventing her from testifying against him for the January 6 domestic assault charge.

"Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and depends on the statement's veracity for its value." State v. Hollowell , 643 S.W.3d 329, 337 (Mo. banc 2022). The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. The Missouri Constitution also provides that, "in criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to ... meet the witnesses against him face to face." Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 18(a). Under the Confrontation Clause, a court should exclude testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial. State v. Hosier , 454 S.W.3d 883, 896 (Mo. banc 2015).

The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing is an exception to the hearsay rule in the context of the facts of this case. Id. at 897. "[T]he forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause holds that ‘if a witness is absent by [defendant's] own wrongful procurement, [defendant] cannot complain if competent evidence is admitted to...