State v. Smith

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MELONIE DAWN SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 45758

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

March 3, 2020

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction for murder in the first degree and destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defenders, Boise, for appellant. Brian R. Dickson argued.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jeff D. Nye, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Jeff D. Nye argued.

____________________

HUSKEY, Chief Judge

Melonie Dawn Smith appeals from her judgment of conviction for murder in the first degree, Idaho Code §§ 18-4001, -4002, and -4003; and destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence, I.C § 18-2603. Smith asserts the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence gathered by a warrantless search and in admitting hearsay testimony for the truth of the matter asserted at trial. Further, Smith argues fundamental error occurred at trial through the admittance of a video exhibit that included Smith's assertions of her Fourth Amendment rights. Finally, Smith contends that, in the aggregate, the errors that occurred amounted to cumulative error. Because the warrantless search was supported by the exigency and protective sweep exception to the warrant requirement, the testimony at issue was used for impeachment purposes, and Smith did not establish fundamental or cumulative error, we affirm.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Guy Lopez, Smith's friend, made an in-person report at the sheriff's office stating that Smith was involved in the homicide of David Davis. Lopez reported that a few hours earlier, Smith picked him up from his home to go for a drive. Lopez stated Smith disclosed that a couple of days earlier, a man named Kevin shot Davis in the legs outside of Smith's home and then Kevin left the scene. Lopez alleged Smith went on to disclose that Davis entered Smith's home where, after attempting to help stop the bleeding, she shot Davis in the head. Lopez reported Smith revealed this information while soliciting his help in destroying Davis's body and other evidence of the crime. Smith drove Lopez to her home and, while there, Lopez reported he witnessed Davis's body wrapped in plastic, part of Davis's skull and other bones in the wood burning stove, and brain matter on the walls. Further, Lopez reported he saw that considerable efforts had been made to clean evidence from the walls surrounding the scene. Lopez gave a detailed report to the officers, which included directions to Smith's property, a map of the interior of the home, and descriptions of Smith's vehicles and guns. An interviewing officer expressed concern that Smith would continue to destroy evidence given her reported efforts to burn body parts in the wood burning stove.

Officers watched Smith's home until the officers sent to make contact with the occupants of Smith's home arrived. There were at least four vehicles in Smith's driveway when officers knocked on her door. Smith answered and engaged in conversation with the officers. The officers explained they had received a report that "something was going on" and they wanted to see if everything was okay. Smith responded that "everything's fine" and, despite the officers' concerns, no one inside needed medical attention. Smith said that her mother, Bettie Duke, was the only other person present in the home. Upon the officers' further pressing, Smith revealed that Kevin had shot Davis in the leg in Smith's driveway,¹ and both men had left the premises. A detective informed Smith he had information that indicated that Davis was dead and his body was inside Smith's home; Smith denied this information. Smith repeatedly denied the officers' requests to search her home, and she stressed they needed to get a warrant. The officers seized the home in anticipation of getting a search warrant and explained that since the home wasseized, Smith and Duke needed to exit the home and any subsequent re-entry would be accompanied by an officer. Smith continued to state the officers could not enter her home without a warrant, and she called out for Duke. An officer proceeded to handcuff Smith.

Officers explained the situation to Duke and when she expressed that she was too shaky to stand in the doorway, they accompanied her inside the home despite her oral protests. The officers proceeded to walk through the home with guns drawn, with one officer repeatedly stating "Sheriff's Office, come out." In the laundry room, officers discovered a large black bag on the floor. A detective felt the end of the bag, feeling what he believed to be two feet. The officers removed Duke from the home, sealed the house, and procured a search warrant. Subsequently, the State charged Smith with murder in the first degree and destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence.

Smith filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained following the warrantless search of her home. The district court denied the motion, finding exigent circumstances regarding the preservation of evidence and the need for a protective sweep operated as exceptions to the warrant requirement and justified the search. Alternatively, even if the warrantless entry into Smith's home was not justified by an exception to the warrant requirement, the district court found the evidence should not be suppressed because it would have inevitably been discovered.

At the subsequent trial, the State sought to admit Exhibit 4, body camera footage from an officer that showed the initial conversation with Smith and the subsequent entry into and sweep of her home. Outside the presence of the jury, Smith objected to the evidence on foundational grounds; Smith argued the video should not be admitted as evidence unless the State laid proper foundation by first calling Lopez to testify. The court stated it would not direct the State on the order of its witnesses, but the State would need to establish foundation for the video before it would be admitted.

Subsequently, the State moved for the admission of Exhibit 4 during trial and Smith, once again, objected:

State: [A]t this point, Your Honor, I would move for the admission of State's Exhibit 4.

Court: Any objection, other than what you previously noted earlier?

Defense: Other than my previous foundational objections, I'm okay, just so the Court reserves that ruling.

Court: All right. [Smith's] previous objection that was made earlier this morning has been preserved.

This Court finds that foundation for the admission of State's Exhibit 4 has been met, and, therefore, it will be admitted.

Later, the State admitted Exhibit 7, a video that depicted the same encounter from the perspective of a patrol vehicle's dash camera, without objection.²

The State called Duke to the stand who testified, among other things, that her daughter, Kellie Leslie, and her grandson, Jeremy Leslie, picked her up from a crisis center after Smith's arrest and drove her to the Boise area. Duke testified that she immediately fell asleep on the drive and denied that she spoke with Kellie and Jeremy about Davis's death or indicated that Smith was responsible for it.

Immediately following Duke's testimony, the State called Kellie and Jeremy to the stand to testify about their memories of conversations with Duke during the drive. Smith objected to both lines of questioning as hearsay, and the district court overruled both objections without further explanation. Smith did not articulate any other basis for the objection, explain how the question called for hearsay, request the court to expand on its ruling, or request the court provide the jury a limiting instruction related to the testimony. The Leslies' subsequent testimony contradicted Duke's account of the conversations that occurred during the drive. Kellie testified that while driving to the Boise area, Duke spoke about the killing and disclosed that Smith attempted to render aid after Kevin shot Davis in the legs, but Smith subsequently shot Davis in the head and proceeded to wrap his body in plastic. Kellie testified that Duke "said something like, you know, like with an animal, that [Smith] put them out of their misery." Jeremy testified that Duke did not sleep during the drive and instead spoke about Davis being killed inside Smith's home and Smith's subsequent attempts to solicit help disposing of the body.

At the close of the trial, the State offered a closing argument that included the following:

Now, if we take the defendant's version and the defendant's version today--I don't want to tell you how to consider what she's said, but I want to point out those inconsistencies that she's had.

When law enforcement arrived at her residence . . . she told them that Kevin had shot David Davis in the legs and that he had left. No one was hurt there. No body was there. Nothing had happened inside the residence. They just needed to leave and go about their business.

That's what she wanted them to do, because she had something to hide. She preferred that that's what they would do, because she had something to hide.

She had the body of David Davis to hide, the body of David Davis that she had continually since she shot him in the back of the head, trying to figure out how she was going to get rid of it . . . .

. . . .

What else has the defendant said? We talked about her three stories. We talked about the story that she gave law enforcement at the door. We talked about the story that she provided today. We talked about the story that she provided to [her boyfriend].

Smith did not object to the State's argument.

The case was submitted to the jury. About an hour into its deliberations, the jury asked to review "the 1st video of the cops clearing the house."...