State v. Young

597 S.W.3d 214

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.John C. YOUNG, Jr., Appellant.

WD 81706

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: November 26, 2019

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 23, 2020

Application for Transfer Denied April 28, 2020

Richard A. Starnes, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Kent E. Gipson, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Before Division Three: Alok Ahuja, Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt, Judge and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

Gary D. Witt, Judge

Appellant John Young, Jr. ("Young") appeals his conviction of multiple offenses by the Jackson County Circuit Court following a jury trial. Young alleges three points of error on appeal: (1) the court erred in accepting the jury's verdicts as to the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, together with the guilty verdicts for unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action, because the verdicts were inconsistent; (2) the court erred in entering convictions for both unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action, because this constituted double jeopardy; and (3) the court erred in refusing to submit Young's proposed instruction regarding self-defense under the castle doctrine's provision regarding protection of vehicles. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background¹

This case arises from a "road rage" incident with tragic consequences. On May 25, 2017, Christopher Hutson ("Hutson") and Tailor Monroe ("Monroe") were driving home to Lee's Summit from Overland Park, Kansas, on Interstate 435, in a gold Chevrolet Impala. Due to traffic backups caused by an accident ahead, the couple exited early onto State Line Road. The couple did not know how to proceed so they used a GPS program on Monroe's cell phone and were driving slowly. The windows of the Impala were rolled down and Hutson was driving. Hutson stopped at the traffic signal at 103rd Street and Wornall Road in the left turn lane. Young, driving a blue Chevrolet Cruze, stopped at the light in the lane to the right of Hutson, on the passenger side, and yelled at Hutson to "learn how to f***ing drive." Hutson responded by throwing a coffee or soda cup out of his car towards Young's car. Young proceeded straight through the light on 103rd Street. Hutson also yelled: "What the f*** did this nig*** just say?" although Monroe testified that Young's car was already gone at that point.

Hutson exited the left turn lane and also proceeded straight on 103rd Street. He started following Young, "riding his bumper," but Monroe testified that they did not come into contact with Young's car. According to Monroe, both vehicles were going "pretty fast." Monroe cautioned Hutson not to follow so closely because Monroe was pregnant and feared getting hurt. Monroe testified that after the warning, Hutson then slowed his car and stopped following Young.

Both cars turned off of 103rd Street onto Holmes. As Young approached the ramp to get onto Interstate 435, Hutson pulled up next to Young's car to "say what he had to say." Monroe saw that Young had a gun in his hand and turned to tell Hutson about the gun. At that point, Young fired into Hutson's vehicle, striking both Monroe and Hutson in the head. The shot grazed Monroe's head but entered Hutson's skull going through his brain but not exiting. Young continued onto Interstate 435.

Hutson's car rolled across the center line, coming to a rest in front of the exit ramp for traffic coming off of Interstate 435 onto Holmes blocking traffic. Hutson eventually died from the gunshot wound.

Young did not stop or call authorities. Instead, he returned to his workplace making no mention of the events that just transpired. It wasn't until early the next week that Young confided in a family friend, Robert Biagioli ("Biagioli"), about the shooting. Young told Biagioli that he felt like he was defending his life when he shot into Hutson's car because Hutson had aimed a gun at him. On Wednesday evening, Biagioli showed Young news footage of the shooting which included photos of Young's car, taken from surveillance cameras in the area. Biagioli advised Young to contact an attorney and go to the police. The next day, Young asked Biagioli if he could keep some personal belongings at Biagioli's house. Young placed a black bag in Biagioli's basement. At a later time, Young showed him that there was a gun in the bag and told him it was the gun from the shooting. Biagioli told Young he needed to obtain counsel and turn himself into authorities. Young stayed the night at Biagioli's house.

The next morning, police arrested Young after locating him with vehicle tracker information provided by Young's employer. During a search of Young's residence, police found a box and receipt for the gun that Young had left at Biagioli's house. On June 8, Biagioli turned the gun over to police. Ballistics testing established that the bullet that killed Hutson was fired from the gun recovered from Biagioli.

Young was charged with: Count I - second degree felony murder (victim Hutson) under section 565.021² , with the underlying felony being unlawful use of a weapon charged in Count III, Count II - armed criminal action under section 571.015 related to Count I, Count III - unlawful use of a weapon under section 571.030, Count IV - armed criminal action under section 571.015 related to count III, Count V - assault in the second degree (victim Monroe) under section 565.052, Count VI - armed criminal action under 571.015 using the related count V, Count VII - failure to report a shooting under 577.068, Count VIII - tampering with physical evidence under 575.100.

A jury trial was held on February 20, 2018. Young presented no evidence in his defense, but was able to elicit evidence regarding his claim of self-defense through Biagioli's testimony. The jury found Young guilty on Count I of the lesser-included offense of first degree involuntary manslaughter, section 565.024, guilty on Count II of armed criminal action associated with Count I, guilty on Count III of unlawful use a weapon, guilty on Count IV of armed criminal action related to Count III, guilty on Count V of the lesser included offense of fourth degree assault, section 565.056, not guilty of Count VI of armed criminal action related to Count V, not guilty of Count VI of failure to report a shooting and guilty of Count VIII of tampering with physical evidence.

The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of ten years' imprisonment for involuntary manslaughter and its related count of armed criminal action, concurrent terms of twenty years' imprisonment for unlawful use of a weapon and its related count of armed criminal action, a concurrent term of one year imprisonment for fourth degree assault, and a consecutive term of four years' imprisonment for tampering with physical evidence, resulting in a total sentence of 24 years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.

I.

Young's first point on appeal alleges that the circuit court erred in accepting the jury's verdict as to unlawful use of a weapon, Count III, and armed criminal action, Count IV, because they were inconsistent with the jury's "not guilty verdict" on murder in the second degree, the greatest offense instructed under Count I. According to Young, because the language in the instruction for murder in the second degree and unlawful use of a weapon were "nearly identical," "the state's failure to prove all of the elements of the felony murder charge meant that the jury also necessarily found that the state had failed to prove each of the elements of unlawful use of weapon." We disagree.

Standard of Review

A claim of inconsistent verdicts requires an appropriate objection to be preserved for appeal. State v. Forrest , 183 S.W.3d 218, 230 (Mo. banc 2006). To be preserved, the objection must be raised before the jury is discharged. State v. Flemons , 144 S.W.3d 877, 881 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). As no objection was raised in this case, we may only review for plain error. "To warrant relief under plain error review, an appellant must show ‘manifest prejudice affecting his substantial rights.’ " State v. Bratton , 92 S.W.3d 275, 277 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (quoting State v. Parker , 856 S.W.2d 331, 332 (Mo. banc 1993) ). Review is only warranted where a claim on its face "establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has occurred." Id. "Not all prejudicial error can be deemed plain error." Id.

Discussion

The State charged Young with murder in the second degree, however, under Count I, the jury was also instructed as to the lesser included offenses of voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. As to Count I, the jury ultimately returned a verdict of guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Young argues that the jury's verdict on Count I constituted an affirmative finding of not guilty as to murder in the second degree and this was inconsistent with findings of guilt as to Counts III and IV which contained similar elements.

The jury instruction for Count I, murder in the second degree provided:

As to Count I, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that defendant committed unlawful use of a weapon , as submitted in Instruction No. 19, and

Second, that the defendant caused the death of Christopher Hutson by shooting him, and

Third, that Christopher Hutson was killed as a result of the perpetration of that unlawful use of a weapon,

then you will find the defendant guilty under Count I of murder in the second degree.

However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder in the second degree.

(emphasis added). On Count III, unlawful use of a weapon, the jury was instructed:

As to Count III, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that on or about May 25, 2017, in the County of Jackson, State of Missouri, the defendant knowingly discharged a

...