Case Title: State v. Mathenia

Citation: 702 S.W.2d 840

Docket Number: 66734

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 1986-01-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
702 S.W.2d 840 (1986)
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Charles Lee MATHENIA, a/k/a Chuck Lee Mathenia, Appellant.
No. 66734.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
January 15, 1986.
Rehearing Denied February 18, 1986.
*841 C.J. Larkin, Columbia, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
DONNELLY, Judge.
Appellant, Charles Lee Mathenia, was convicted by a jury of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. We have exclusive appellate jurisdiction under Mo. Const. art. V, § 3.
The sufficiency of the evidence being uncontested, a brief rendition of the facts is as follows:
Decedents were Daisy Nash, 72, and her mentally impaired sister Louanna Bailey, aged 70. Appellant had lived with Daisy Nash for some seven years prior to her death. At the time of the killings, appellant was 25 years old and still living with Nash.
In September of 1983 appellant allegedly twice raped Louanna Bailey and in December of that year he was charged for those offenses upon her complaint. However, in February Louanna Bailey dropped the charges, indicating she would refuse to testify against appellant. The evidence indicated that the murders were motivated by appellant's resentment at having been arrested and confined in connection with these charges. Appellant vowed to take revenge on the two sisters.
Sometime after midnight on April 24, 1984, appellant returned home after spending the day with his sister and brother-in-law. An argument began with Daisy Nash as soon as he entered the house. During the course of this argument, appellant hit the 72-year-old woman in the face, knocking her to the floor. He then retrieved a butcher knife from the kitchen and after kicking and beating her savagely, he stabbed her several times.
Shortly thereafter, appellant rode his bicycle the two blocks to Louanna Bailey's home and told her he had killed Daisy. While Louanna tried to call Daisy, appellant procured a butcher knife. When he returned, Louanna attempted in vain to flee. Appellant stabbed her fatally in the back.
Appellant was arrested the following day, April 25th, the same day the bodies were found. He made no statement at that time, but gave an extensive video-taped confession on May 7th, against the advice of his counsel.
For the first point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling defense objection to the following *842 colloquy between Prosecutor Reid and Sheriff Asher:
At this point defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial on the ground that the question and answer were impermissible comment on appellant's exercise of his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. The court denied the motion and appellant preserved the objection in his motion for new trial.
As stated by this Court in State v. Stuart, 456 S.W.2d 19, 23 (Mo. banc 1970), "[A]n accused's failure to volunteer an exculpatory statement is not admissible as an admission * * *. The admission of such evidence constitutes an invasion of an accused's constitutional rights." (Citations omitted.) See also, State v. McLarty, 467 S.W.2d 58 (Mo.1971). Stuart preceded the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), wherein the Court reasoned as follows:
426 U.S.  at 619, 96 S. Ct.  at 2245, quoting United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 182-183, 95 S. Ct. 2133, 2139-40, 45 L. Ed. 2d 99 (White, J., concurring). In State v. Nolan, 595 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Mo.App.1980), the court delineated the rule as follows: "The state may not use [post-arrest] silence as [1] affirmative proof or [2] to impeach the defendant's testimony."
Our examination of the record in this case does not reveal that this reference to appellant's post-arrest silence was used as "affirmative proof" or "to impeach" the appellant.
The transcript shows that the above-quoted sequence was merely preliminary to the admission into evidence of appellant's video-taped statement. Sheriff Asher's testimony that appellant declined to make a statement at the time of his arrest merely crystalized what was already suggested by the fact that appellant ultimately did make a statement on May 7th.
Regarding the impeachment use of appellant's post-arrest silence, we likewise find no reversible error. Although appellant did not put on any evidence, appellant contends that the prosecution attempted to penalize him for his silence when arguing in rebuttal the incredibility of aspects of appellant's video-taped statement. The gist of the prosecution's argument on this matter was that the appellant made a self-serving confession after he had consulted over a period of two weeks with defense counsel and defense investigators. No objection was interposed by defense counsel, so we review for plain error.
We have reviewed the transcript and find that the prosecutor's argument did not result in manifest injustice.
Appellant next contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to strike for cause veniremember Middleton because of his statements regarding imposition of the death penalty.
The voir dire proceeded as follows:
At this point, the prosecution objected out of the jury's hearing to the form of the question in that it failed to test the veniremember's ability to follow the court's instructions on the law and balance mitigating and aggravating circumstances in assessing punishment. A lengthy discussion followed during which the court sustained the objection stating: "I'm going to sustain the objection as to that, the last one. You're going to have to phrase it in terms of following the instructions of the Court." The proceedings then returned to open court where the following ensued:
Again the State objected and again the objection was sustained, with the judge amplifying his prior ruling:
Defense counsel asked no further questions of veniremember Middleton.
Later on, the prosecutor asked the panel the following question:
The gravamen of the court's action in sustaining of the prosecution's objection to the form of defense counsel's question was that the question could not yield an intelligent answer. The court indicated repeatedly that the question was improper unless it referred to the ability of the veniremember to consider the court's instructions on aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Veniremember Middleton never indicated that he would impose death no matter what the court's instructions. To the contrary, he declined to take such a position when the panel was questioned to that effect by the prosecutor.
State v. Smith, 649 S.W.2d 417, 422 (Mo. banc 1983). We find from the record before us no abuse of discretion.
For his third point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in striking for cause veniremembers Ledoux and Lamprecht. The strikes are objected to as part of the "death qualification" of the jury. The transcript reveals that there was no ambiguity or equivocation in each veniremember's responses that they could not consider giving the death penalty. Appellant's sole contention, relying on Grigsby v. Mabry, 758 F.2d 226 (8th Cir.1985), is that "death qualification" denies a defendant a fair and impartial jury. We have previously declined to follow Grigsby and see no need to reconsider. See State v. Nave, 694 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. banc 1985), State v. Malone, 694 S.W.2d 723 (Mo. banc 1985).
Alternatively, appellant argues that excluding veniremembers Ledoux and Lemprecht violated Mo. Const. art. I, § 5. This issue is raised for the first time on appeal.
Appellant contends that veniremember Ledoux's statement that she had "a strong belief in not taking another person's life" and veniremember Lamprecht's statement "I'd have to go to confession if I give [sic] a [death] verdict" were religious beliefs for which they were unconstitutionally disqualified from the panel.
The two veniremembers were not disqualified from serving as jurors because of their religious beliefs, but because they demonstrated probable inability or unwillingness to follow the law. The point is without merit.
Next, appellant alleges error in the trial court's submission of instructions on non-statutory aggravating circumstances. The essence of appellant's challenge is that this Court should reconsider its holding in State v. Shaw, 636 S.W.2d 667 (Mo. banc 1982). There we held that the "any * * * aggravating circumstances otherwise authorized by law" language of § 565.012.1(3), RSMo 1978, permits an instruction drawing the jury's attention to evidence. Shaw, 636 S.W.2d  at 675. We decline to reconsider Shaw. The point is without merit.
Appellant also contends that the non-statutory aggravating circumstances "[t]hat Daisy Nash [Louanna Bailey] was a potential witness in a past felony proceeding against the defendant * * * and Daisy Nash [Louanna Bailey] was killed as a result of her involvement as a material witness against the defendant" duplicated the statutory circumstance that "the murder of Daisy Nash [Louanna Bailey] was committed by the defendant for the purpose of preventing Daisy Nash [Louanna Bailey] *845 from testifying in a judicial proceeding." The former instruction refers to the appellant's revenge motive, while the latter involves his preventing his own subsequent prosecution. We do not believe that drawing the jury's attention to evidence suggesting appellant's revenge motive duplicates the statutory aggravating circumstance instruction. The point is without merit.
Finally, appellant challenges the appropriateness of the imposition of the death penalty. Section 565.014.3, RSMo 1978, (repealed effective October 1, 1984) mandates that this Court review the entire record, transcript and report of the trial judge to consider the punishment as well as any errors raised on appeal to determine:
Appellant does not contend and our review does not reveal that the sentence resulted from passion, prejudice or other arbitrary factor. Appellant does assert that the evidence fails to support the finding of statutory aggravating circumstances and that the sentences are excessive or disproportionate.
The jury was instructed on the following statutory aggravating circumstances:
We have reviewed the entire record and find that the evidence supports both findings. There is no doubt that appellant's savage beating of Daisy Nash supported a finding of the first circumstance as did appellant's "infliction of * * * psychological torture upon [Louanna Bailey] * * * when [she had] a substantial period of time before death to anticipate and reflect on it." State v. Preston 673 S.W.2d 1, 11 (Mo. banc 1984), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 105 S. Ct. 269, 83 L. Ed. 2d 205 (1984).
Likewise there was sufficient evidence that both Daisy Nash and Louanna Bailey were potential witnesses against appellant for the alleged rapes of Louanna Bailey. The evidence also supported a finding that Louanna Bailey was a potential witness against the appellant in the murder of Daisy Nash.
Regarding proportionality, we note that this case involved the brutal murders of two elderly women. The murders were not part of the same criminal transaction, but were separate in time and location. They were planned and committed out of vengeance and to prevent the victims from testifying against appellant.
We have considered the numerous cases cited by appellant where death was not imposed as well as those cases where the death penalty was upheld and we conclude that the death sentences in this case are not excessive or disproportionate. State v. Battle, 661 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. banc 1983) (defendant stabbed to death 80-year-old burglary victim), State v. Foster, 700 S.W.2d 440 (Mo. banc 1985) (defendant shot to death an acquaintance in the process of robbing him), State v. LaRette, 648 S.W.2d 96 (Mo. banc 1983) (defendant stabbed to death 18-year-old girl), State v. Lashley, 667 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. banc 1984) (defendant struck with frying pan, then fatally stabbed his 55-year-old cousin, who was his guardian), State v. Nave, 694 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. banc 1985) (defendant shot his 55-year-old landlady ten or eleven times), State v. Preston, 673 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1984) (defendant stabbed to death 34-year-old man and at the same time killed a woman; the latter resulted in second degree murder conviction), State v. Smith, 649 S.W.2d 417 (Mo. *846 banc 1983) (defendant beat to death 20-year-old woman).
The judgment is affirmed.
HIGGINS, C.J., BILLINGS and WELLIVER, JJ., and PREWITT, Special Judge, concur.
RENDLEN, J., concurs in result.
BLACKMAR, J., concurs in part and dissents in part in separate opinion filed.
ROBERTSON, J., not sitting.
BLACKMAR, Judge concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The evidence amply supports the judgment of conviction, and I agree that it should be affirmed. The evidence also supports the submission of the death penalty, based on the statutory aggravating circumstances on which instructions were given. The sentence of death, however, should be set aside and the case remanded for a new trial of the punishment phase.
Questions were asked of Juror Middleton, and answers given, (quoted in the principal opinion) which made it crystal clear that he would decree a death sentence if the jury should find the defendant guilty of capital murder. The trial judge did not "sustain" objections until after the questions had been asked and answers given. The trial judge and the prosecution knew the juror's attitude; it was up to one or the other to proceed with rehabilitation to the extent possible. See State v. Smith, 649 S.W.2d 417, 427 (Mo. banc 1983). All information available at that point indicated that the juror should be excused for cause.
I cannot discern the slightest flaw in the questions asked. These questions are almost identical to those customarily asked by prosecutors in the course of "Witherspooning" the jury.[1] The prosecutor's objection really amounts to a claim that the questions asked and the answers given showed the juror's attitude too clearly. A question is not objectionable simply because it shows the need for further inquiry (which was not had here).
The general rehabilitation question was not sufficient. The jurors were simply asked whether they knew of any reason why they could not follow the instructions of the court. Middleton could have followed these instructions to the letter, while still applying his announced predilections. The instructions simply told him that that the jury, after considering the evidence and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, had perfect discretion to decree death or life with mandatory 50 years. He had already indicated what he would do if presented with this choice.
The fault is aggravated because other jurors were excused under the Witherspoon rule. The jury was purged of those who could not consider the death penalty, while the defense was obliged to use a valuable peremptory challenge to remove the juror who would not consider a life sentence. Both sides should be required to play by the same rules. Middleton simply should not have been tendered as a juror. Cf. Smith v. State, 573 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. Crim.App.1977).
The instructions provided the prosecutor with a judicial summary of his argument for a death sentence, by mentioning non-statutory aggravating circumstances. Instruction #24 at the penalty phase reads as follows: (Emphasis supplied).
The instruction had effect, as is shown in the jury's verdict, which reads in pertinent part: (Emphasis supplied).
The instruction is not inherently prejudicial, and is not unlike those which are frequently given in the federal courts[2] and, no doubt, in other jurisdictions. But Missouri simply does not follow the format in which the trial judge summarizes the contentions of the parties, and our courts shy away from anything which might be considered a comment on the evidence.[3] The same rules should apply in capital cases as in other cases.
The instruction, furthermore, does not follow MAI format.[4] In State v. Cross, 594 S.W.2d 609 (Mo. banc 1980) a trial judge *848 accompanied the reading of MAI-CR 2.01 and 2.02 with a detailed explanation about the jury system. This Court reversed, because of deviation from the format. There are no assertions that the judge had said anything that was misleading or legally erroneous. The refusal was simply because of the form. The holding has been followed in other cases.[5] It should be followed in a capital case.
State v. Shaw, 636 S.W.2d 667 (Mo. banc 1982), cited in the principal opinion, is not at all in point. It simply holds that the prosecution may introduce evidence of, and may argue, non-statutory aggravating circumstances such as the presence of prior convictions. The case has nothing to do with instructing the jury. It does not justify the court in making or supplementing the prosecutor's argument in its instructions.
The principal opinion stands in stark contrast to State v. Young, 701 S.W.2d 429 (Mo. banc 1985), in which the defendant was refused an instruction on a non-statutory mitigating circumstance, and was relegated to argument. The same rule should apply to the prosecution.
Procedural formalities should be strictly followed when the ultimate penalty is sought. Even though the record seems otherwise free of error, and the death sentence is entirely in line with other cases, it should not stand.
[1]  Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S. Ct. 1770, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1968). See State v. Johns, 679 S.W.2d 253, 264 (Mo. banc 1984); State v. Battle, 661 S.W.2d 487, 491 (Mo. banc 1983).
[2]  E. Devitt & C. Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice & Instructions, Vol. I, §§ 10.10 and 13.07 (1977).
[3]  Duncan v. Pinkston, 340 S.W.2d 753, 758 (Mo. 1960).
[4]  MAI-CR2d 13.40 and 13.41.
[5]  State v. Harvey, 625 S.W.2d 198 (Mo.App. 1981); Duebelbeis v. Dohack, 615 S.W.2d 488 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Behrman, 613 S.W.2d 666 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Baker, 595 S.W.2d 801 (Mo.App.1980).