State v. Stock

1

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. COLTON STOCK, Appellant.

No. WD86198

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Third Division

October 22, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY THE HONORABLE SHANE T ALEXANDER, JUDGE

BEFORE: THOMAS N. CHAPMAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, LISA WHITE HARDWICK, JUDGE, AND ALOK AHUJA, JUDGE

LISA WHITE HARDWICK, JUDGE

Colton Stock appeals his convictions and sentences for felony tampering with physical evidence and abandoning a corpse. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and the court erroneously instructed the jury on both crimes. Stock also argues the circuit court violated his right against self-incrimination, violated his right to due process by failing to question him about his ability to assist in his defense and/or continue the trial after he missed a dose of his mental health medication, and exceeded its statutory authority in entering a monetary judgment against him in favor of the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund. For reasons explained herein, we affirm, in part, and reverse and remand in part.

Factual and Procedural History

Stock met Victim in March or April 2019 when Victim walked into Stock's backyard. Stock had been having problems with trespassers on his property, so he initially told Victim to leave. After Stock learned Victim was profoundly deaf, he felt sorry for Victim. Stock and Victim became "drinking buddies," as Stock invited Victim over on multiple occasions over the next several weeks to drink beer with him. On one occasion, Stock bought a Taurus .38-caliber revolver and ammunition from Victim.

At the end of April or beginning of May 2019, Victim came over to Stock's home to watch television and drink beer. Victim asked Stock for a ride, but Stock told him he had drunk too many beers to drive. Victim suggested Stock smoke methamphetamine to "sober up," but Stock declined. When Stock refused Victim's second request for a ride Victim got angry, picked up a baseball bat, hit Stock's television and smashed Stock's piggy bank with the bat, and took the television off its wall mount. Victim's behavior scared Stock because he had never seen Victim act aggressively, and Victim was taller and approximately 100 pounds heavier than Stock. Stock calmed Victim down, then gave Victim a ride. After this incident, Stock felt like Victim was a threat because Victim knew where he lived, Victim was using drugs, and Victim acted aggressively towards him. When Stock returned to his home, he looked for the Taurus revolver he had purchased from Victim but could not find it. He did not report the gun stolen.

On May 3, 2019, around11:00 p.m., Stock was walking up the stairs from his basement when he heard someone breaking into his house through the back door. He saw Victim inside his house. Victim was wearing gloves and carrying the Taurus revolver that Stock had bought from him. Believing Victim was there to either rob or kill him, Stock charged at Victim. A struggle ensued. At one point, Victim slid on a cat's water bowl that was on the floor, which caused him to drop the gun. Stock grabbed the gun. Victim leaned toward Stock. Stock backed up, raised the gun, and fired two shots at Victim.

After firing the shots, Stock went into his bathroom and shut the door. He believed police would be on their way to investigate because shots were fired. Stock waited in his bathroom for two hours because he was scared. He did not have his phone with him.

Stock eventually left the bathroom and looked for Victim. He found Victim lying on the kitchen floor in a pool of blood. After determining Victim was dead, Stock went back into his bathroom, grabbed a can of shaving cream, and sprayed shaving cream over the window on his back door, covering it. He went downstairs to get a tarp, which he used to cover Victim's body. Stock then took a 30-minute shower to get Victim's blood off of him. After showering, Stock cleaned up Victim's blood in the kitchen. He dragged Victim's body into the den and cleaned up the blood that was in front of the refrigerator. Stock decided he was going to have to move Victim's body, and the only way he could do it was "to make [Victim] lighter." He went downstairs to his basement, retrieved a handsaw, put the handsaw on victim's arm, and began sawing back and forth, without much effect.

The next morning, Stock had a preplanned date with a woman. He decided to take his date to Home Depot, where he bought a reciprocating saw. Stock took his date to her house, returned home alone, and used the reciprocating saw to remove Victim's head, arms, and legs. He put Victim's head, arms, and legs in two trash bags. He then put Victim's torso on the tarp and dragged it through the house and downstairs to his basement. Stock cleaned the area where he had dismembered Victim. He put the trash bags containing Victim's body parts in the trunk of his car. Later that night, Stock drove to an unknown location, dug a hole, and buried Victim's head, arms, and legs. Stock determined Victim's torso was still too heavy for him to move out of the house, so he decided he was going to purchase a van with a ramp so he could "drag him up into the back of the van."

The next day, May 5, 2019, Stock was unable to buy a van so he decided to put lighter fluid on Victim's torso, while it was in his basement, and ignite it because he did not want it to be found. He also set fire to a piece of carpet and to the reciprocating saw and saw blade he had used to dismember Victim. According to Stock, he immediately realized setting the fire was "stupid" and attempted to extinguish the fire with water before going outside.

Once outside, Stock saw police officers at his home. Stock's aunt, who lived next door, had asked her husband to contact the police after she heard gunshots and saw someone running out of Stock's house earlier that day. The police officers saw smoke coming from Stock's house and called the fire department. Stock appeared "pretty fidgety" and "nervous" when he gave the officers the keys to search his house. He told them he had been involved in a "traumatic experience, a fight for his life." Stock volunteered to the officers that he had invited an unknown homeless man into his house to help him out and that, at some point while he and the homeless man were in the living room of his house, the homeless man pulled out a firearm. Stock said that, after a struggle, he was able to get the firearm from the homeless man and fire a single shot at the homeless man in self-defense. He did not say what caused the fire in his home.

As firefighters were putting out the fire in Stock's basement, they found Victim's burned torso. The police arrested Stock. The autopsy of Victim's torso showed a gunshot wound on the inside of his thigh and another gunshot wound in the back of Victim's shoulder. The medical examiner testified that, based on the portions of Victim's body which were available for examination, Victim's cause of death was the gunshot wound to the back. The bullet recovered from Victim's torso was fired from the Taurus revolver recovered from Stock's home.

Stock was charged with first-degree murder and a corresponding count of armed criminal action, abandonment of a corpse, and felony tampering with physical evidence. A jury trial was held. Stock testified he shot Victim in self-defense and admitted he dismembered Victim's body, buried Victim's head, arms, and legs, and burned Victim's torso. The jury acquitted Stock of first-degree murder^[1] and armed criminal action but found him guilty of abandonment of a corpse and felony tampering with physical evidence. Pursuant to the jury's recommendation, the court sentenced Stock to four years in prison on each count and imposed a fine of $10,000 for each count. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The court also ordered Stock to pay $46 to the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund. Stock appeals.

Standards of Review

We review the evidence presented in a criminal trial in the light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo. banc 2009). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider "whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to find each of the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Russell, 656 S.W.3d 265, 282 (Mo. App. 2022) (citation omitted). We accept as true all evidence and inferences favorable to the verdict and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. We recognize the factfinder, which in this case was a jury, determined the reliability, credibility, and weight of the witnesses' testimony, and the jury had the authority to believe all, some, or none of a witness's testimony. State v. Ware, 447 S.W.3d 224, 227 (Mo. App. 2014).

We may review unpreserved issues only for plain error, which requires a finding that the circuit court's error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d at 607. In reviewing for plain error, we first determine whether the claim of error "facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Not all prejudicial error is plain error. Id. "Plain errors are those which are evident, obvious, and clear." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If we find plain error, we then determine "whether the claimed error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice." Id. at 607-08 (citation omitted).

Analysis

Tampering with Physical Evidence - Points I, II, and III

In his first three points, Stock challenges his conviction for felony tampering with physical evidence. Section...