Case Title: State v. Hosier

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC93855

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 2015-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
 
 
STATE OF MISSOURI, 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
Respondent,  
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
v.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC93855 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
DAVID RUSSELL HOSIER, 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY 
The Honorable Patricia S. Joyce, Judge 
 
Opinion issued February 3, 2015 
 
  
David Hosier (Defendant) was charged with and convicted of first-degree murder, 
armed criminal action, first-degree burglary, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a 
felon.  He was sentenced to death for the murder charge, 15 years in prison for the armed 
criminal action charge, 15 years for the burglary charge and seven years for the unlawful 
possession of a firearm charge.  He appeals his conviction, alleging certain evidence 
should have been suppressed or was inadmissible.  He further argues that there was 
insufficient evidence to support a conviction for burglary. 
 
This Court holds that: (1) evidence seized from Defendant’s person and car was 
admissible because his flight from police and the nature of the alleged Fourth 
Amendment violation purged the evidence of any taint of an illegal stop; (2) Defendant 
was not seized until he pulled his car over in response to the police; (3) there was 
sufficient probable cause to support a search warrant for Defendant’s apartment; (4) 
pictures of the guns and ammunition found in Defendant’s car were admissible because 
they were logically and legally relevant; (5) the victim’s statements on an application for 
a protective order and to her landlord concerning Defendant’s actions were admissible 
under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine; (6) there was sufficient evidence to support 
a conviction for first-degree burglary; (7) the note found in Defendant’s car was 
authenticated by circumstantial evidence; and (8) his sentence was proportional.  The 
judgment is affirmed.  
Factual Background 
 
The bodies of Angela Gilpin (Victim) and Rodney Gilpin (Husband) were found 
in the hallway of their apartment building.1  The Jefferson City Police Department 
(JCPD) found 9-millimeter shell casings in the foyer and the apartment, and an autopsy 
later revealed that Victim died from gunshot wounds to the head and torso and Husband 
died from gunshot wounds to the chest.  Victim was wearing her purse, which contained 
an application for a protective order from Defendant.  The application stated that she and 
Defendant were “ex-lovers, he knows everywhere i [sic] go, who i [sic] go with, who 
comes to my home and is harassing me calling JCPD for no reason.”  She further wrote 
that “he stalkes [sic] me every day, has called JCPD on me Sat. Monday.”  She also 
                                                          
 
1Although the police found two victims, this case stems only from charges brought against 
Defendant for Victim’s death.  It does not involve charges related to Husband’s death.    
3 
 
indicated that she was afraid because Defendant had a violent history with an ex-wife.  
On a separate form used for obtaining service, she indicated that Defendant had “lots of 
firearms.”2  JCPD soon learned that Defendant and Victim had been involved in an “on 
again, off again” romantic relationship that Victim had ended when she reconciled with 
Husband.  The apartment building was locked, and there were no signs of forcible entry.     
 
In the hours after the deaths were discovered, JCPD spoke with various people 
who knew the victims and Defendant, including their landlord, two neighbors and 
Defendant’s former employer. 
The landlord informed JCPD that Defendant’s apartment overlooked Victim’s 
apartment and that Victim had requested a new apartment because she no longer wanted 
to live near Defendant.  The landlord relayed a copy of a letter Victim had written him 
stating that she had filed for a restraining order against Defendant and that she was afraid 
because she did not know what Defendant would “do next.”  He also provided police 
with a criminal background check indicating that Defendant had been convicted of 
assault and battery in Indiana.   
The landlord added that he recently told Defendant that he was no longer 
permitted to enter Victim’s apartment building because Victim complained he had 
entered her apartment without permission.3  The landlord had asked Defendant to move 
out by the end of September because of the growing tension.   
                                                          
 
2 Victim applied for the order of protection two weeks prior to the murder, and a hearing was set 
for four days prior to the murder.  The record does not indicate that the hearing was held.  
However, Defendant’s landlord testified that a sheriff’s deputy attempted to serve Defendant 
with process, but Defendant was out of town.   
3 Defendant used to have access to Victim’s building to do odd jobs.  
4 
 
 
JCPD also contacted a neighbor who had socialized with Victim the night before 
her death.  Defendant had left several voice messages on the neighbor’s cell phone that 
night that were threatening toward Victim.  In one message, Defendant stated that he was 
going to “f****** finish it.  I’m tired of the s***.  You don’t believe me.  I’m tired of the 
s***.”  On another occasion after Defendant and Victim broke up, Defendant told this 
neighbor that if he could not have Victim, no one could.   
 
A second neighbor told JCPD that Defendant had called her the night before the 
murders to say that he had left certain possessions on her car in case something happened.  
He also told her that he was going to “eliminate his problems.”  The neighbor led JCPD 
to her car, where they found a note and a set of keys.  The note was from Defendant and 
instructed the neighbor to call Defendant’s sister if anything happened to him.  He also 
asked her to take care of his possessions in a storage facility.  The neighbor told police 
that Defendant had previously stated that Victim had “f****** him over” and that he was 
going to “f*** her over.” 
 
JCPD also spoke with Defendant’s former employer.  He told them Defendant had 
been “let go” because he had been harassing and stalking Victim, who had been a 
frequent customer.   
In the hours immediately following the murders, there was no response at 
Defendant’s apartment and his car was not in its usual parking spot.  Relying on the 
information they learned from the landlord, the neighbor with the threatening voicemails 
and Defendant’s former employer, Missouri authorities applied for a search warrant for 
Defendant’s apartment.  They found 9-millimeter ammunition and an empty box of 9-
5 
 
millimeter shells.  They also found the schematic for a 9-millimeter STEN machine gun.   
They also applied for a ping order4 to determine Defendant’s location when they 
applied for the search warrant.  The application included an affidavit in which the 
swearing officer stated that Defendant “has been identified as the primary suspect in the 
homicide investigation” and the location information was “essential . . . to obtain key 
evidence relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation.”  The ping order allowed police 
to determine Defendant’s location in real time based on the location of his cell phone.   
 
Using the ping order, JCPD determined that Defendant was traveling south 
through Oklahoma.  They alerted law enforcement officials in Oklahoma that a “wanted 
car and person” was in the area.  An officer spotted Defendant’s car and activated his 
emergency lights to pull him over.  Defendant did not stop and led police on a “moderate 
speed chase,” evading one road block before pulling over.  When he eventually stopped, 
he exited his car, saying, “Shoot me, and get it over with” or “end it.”  They were able to 
put him in handcuffs and found a knife on his body.  In plain view in the car, police saw a 
bulletproof vest, gun and pistol holder.   
 
Oklahoma authorities applied for a search warrant for Defendant’s car.  In the 
application, the swearing officer stated that he was alerted to Defendant’s presence in 
Oklahoma by JCPD and that JCPD had identified Defendant as the primary suspect in the 
homicide investigation based on interviews with the neighbors.  The application stated 
                                                          
 
4 Cell phone companies are able to determine the location of a cell phone by tracking which cell 
towers the phone “pings.”  A cell phone will ping the nearest tower whenever it receives an 
incoming call or when it makes an outgoing call.  Cell phones also periodically ping the nearest 
tower as long as the phone is activated. 
6 
 
that police were aware he was in Oklahoma based on the ping order.  The swearing 
officer stated that Defendant had violated state law by illegally possessing a firearm and 
failing to yield to police lights and sirens.   
In searching the car pursuant to the Oklahoma warrant, police recovered two cell 
phones, a knife next to the driver’s seat, a bulletproof vest, 400 rounds of ammunition 
and 15 firearms.  One of these firearms was an unloaded STEN machine gun that was 
capable of firing 9-millimeter ammunition.  It was the only gun in the car that was not in 
a bag, and was later determined to be the murder weapon. 
They also found two notes.  One note had Victim’s vehicle information written on 
it.  The other note offered incriminating evidence that Defendant had harmed someone.  It 
stated: 
If you are going with someone do not lie to them, do not play 
games with them, do not f*** them over by telling other 
people things that are not true, do not blame them for things 
that they have not done.  Be honest with them and tell them if 
there is something wrong.  If you do not this could happen to 
YOU!!  People do not like being f***** with, and after so 
much s*** they can go off the deap [sic] end!!  Had to [sic] 
much s***!!! 
 
Defendant was charged with first-degree murder, armed criminal action, first-
degree burglary and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.  The jury found 
Defendant guilty on all counts.  
 During the penalty phase of the trial, the government presented evidence that 
Defendant had assaulted his ex-wife and was convicted of assault and battery for 
handcuffing and beating another ex-girlfriend until she was unconscious.  There was 
7 
 
other evidence that Defendant had threatened other people prior to the murder.  
Defendant presented mitigation evidence from his mother, sister, pastor and ex-wife.     
The jury recommended a death sentence after finding two statutory aggravating 
circumstances: (1) that Defendant had previously been convicted of a serious assault and 
(2) that Defendant had murdered Victim while committing another unlawful homicide.  
The trial court sentenced him to death on the murder charge, 15 years in prison for armed 
criminal action, 15 years for burglary, and seven years for being a felon in possession of a 
firearm.  This appeal follows.5 
Evidence Seized from Defendant’s Car Was Admissible 
Defendant first argues the ping order used to track his location was an illegal 
search because it was not supported by probable cause.  Consequently, he argues, the 
evidence seized from his car was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.  His second 
contention is that the stop in Oklahoma was an illegal seizure, rendering the evidence 
inadmissible. 
Standard of Review 
When reviewing the trial court’s decision to overrule a motion to suppress, this 
Court considers the evidence presented both at the suppression hearing and at trial to 
determine whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the trial court’s 
decision.  State v. Grayson, 336 S.W.3d 138, 142 (Mo. banc 2011).  This Court defers to 
the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings, inquiring only whether the 
decision is supported by substantial evidence, and reverses only if the trial court’s 
                                                          
 
5 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 3. 
8 
 
decision is clearly erroneous.  Id.  Determinations of whether there was reasonable 
suspicion or probable cause are questions of law that are reviewed de novo.  Id.   
Ping Order 
The ping order directed Defendant’s cell phone company to provide police with 
the real-time location information of his cell phone.  JCPD used this information to track 
Defendant to Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma authorities relied on the ping order in 
applying for the search warrant for Defendant’s car.  Police gathered several pieces of 
evidence from Defendant’s car pursuant to the Oklahoma search warrant: 15 guns, 
including the murder weapon, numerous rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, a 
knife, the note with Victim’s car information and the incriminating note.  Defendant filed 
a pretrial motion to suppress this evidence and made timely objections at trial.   
Missouri authorities obtained the ping order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) 
(2006), which requires “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable 
grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records 
or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal 
investigation.”  This is a lesser standard than the probable cause needed to obtain a search 
warrant as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution.6   
The issue of whether police must make a probable cause showing in order to 
obtain real-time cell phone location data has been frequently challenged.  Some courts 
                                                          
 
6 People are to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrants shall issue but 
upon probable cause.  U.S. CONST. amend. IV; MO. CONST. art. I, sec. 15.  The Missouri 
provision is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment, and the same analysis applies under both 
provisions.  State v. Lovelady, 432 S.W.3d 187, 190 (Mo. banc 2014). 
9 
 
have determined that ping orders for real-time cell phone location on public 
thoroughfares do not require probable cause.  See, e.g., United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 
772 (6th Cir. 2012).  Others have found the ping orders may constitute a search that 
require a warrant supported by probable cause, but an exception applied.  See, e.g., 
United States v. Barajas, 710 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir. 2013).  Still others have found that 
evidence obtained from such orders is inadmissible absent a showing of probable cause.  
See, e.g., In re Order Authorizing Prospective and Continuous Release of Cell Site 
Location Records, 31 F. Supp. 3d 889 (S.D. Tex. 2014).  No Missouri state court has 
ruled on this issue.   
Defendant argues that the ping order was a search, and Missouri authorities were 
required to make a probable cause showing.  He continues that because the ping order 
violated the Fourth Amendment, any subsequent searches and seizures based on the 
illegal order were subject to exclusion as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”   
Not all evidence that is “fruit of the poisonous tree” must be suppressed, however.  
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88 (1963).  The relevant inquiry is whether 
the evidence in question “has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by 
means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.”  Id. at 488; 
Grayson, 336 S.W.3d at 147.  If the evidence has been “purged of the primary taint,” then 
it may be admissible.    
To determine if evidence has been “purged of the primary taint,” courts consider 
three factors: (1) the temporal proximity between the illegality and the procurement of 
the evidence; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and 
10 
 
flagrancy of the official misconduct.  See Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 (1975); 
Grayson, 336 S.W.3d at 147.   
Even if this Court assumes without deciding whether relying on the less stringent 
standard of § 2703(d) to obtain the ping order violated the Fourth Amendment, the 
evidence was admissible because it was “purged of the primary taint.”  The first factor, 
temporal proximity, cautions against admitting the evidence as the first attempt at 
stopping Defendant in Oklahoma took place about two hours after JCPD obtained the 
ping order.   
The next two factors, however, weigh strongly in favor of admitting the evidence.  
The second factor, the presence of intervening events, was satisfied when Defendant led 
police on a car chase.  See Brown, 422 U.S. at 604.  This was an intervening event that 
gave police reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant.  The bulletproof vest, knife, gun and 
pistol holder police officers found on Defendant’s person and in plain view in his car, in 
addition to the information they learned from JCPD, gave them probable cause to obtain 
and execute a search warrant independent of the ping order.  See, e.g., United States v. 
Dawdy, 46 F.3d 1427, 1431 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding “a defendant’s response to even an 
invalid arrest or Terry stop may constitute independent grounds for arrest” in a case 
where the defendant fled police on foot after being stopped); United States v. Garcia, 516 
F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir. 1975) (suppression not warranted when defendant fled an illegal 
traffic stop in his car because the flight was “voluntary conduct” so law enforcement did 
not exploit the illegal stop); State v. McKeehan, 894 S.W.2d 216 (Mo. App. 1995) (police 
were justified in stopping defendant when he fled approaching police and led police on a 
11 
 
high speed chase).   
The third factor in determining if the evidence was purged of its taint is the 
purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.  See Brown, 422 U.S. at 604.  This 
factor also favors admissibility.  As discussed above, courts are split as to whether police 
must make a probable cause showing to obtain real-time cell location information under 
18 U.S.C. § 2703(d).  It is difficult to find fault with law enforcement here because of the 
unsettled nature of this point of law.   
Even assuming the police violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by 
obtaining and relying on the ping order, the evidence seized from Defendant’s car was 
admissible because it was “purged of the primary taint.”   
Oklahoma Stop 
Defendant’s next argument against the admissibility of the evidence found in his 
car also fails.  He asserts that he was seized when the Oklahoma officer first activated his 
lights.  He contends that since he was not violating any traffic laws at that time, there was 
no probable cause to stop him.  His argument continues that, because the Oklahoma 
police lacked probable cause for this seizure, all the evidence seized from his car was 
inadmissible.   
Defendant urges this Court to apply the standard articulated by the Supreme Court 
of the United States in United States v. Mendenhall to find that he was seized the moment 
the officer activated the emergency lights in Oklahoma.  446 U.S. 544 (1980).  In 
Mendenhall, DEA agents approached the defendant in an airport because she fit the 
profile of a drug courier.  Finding that the defendant was not seized when police first 
12 
 
approached her, the Supreme Court held that a person is seized for Fourth Amendment 
purposes only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable 
person would have believed she was not free to leave.  Id. at 554.   
Several years later, in California v. Hodari D., the Supreme Court held that a 
person is not seized until the police subject the person to physical force or the person 
submits to a show of police authority.  499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991); see also State v. Deck, 
994 S.W.2d 527, 535 (Mo. banc 1999).  In doing so, it noted that the Fourth Amendment 
“does not remotely apply . . . to the prospect of a policeman yelling ‘Stop, in the name of 
the law!’ at a fleeing form that continues to flee.”  Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 626.  Although 
Mendenhall established that the test for whether a person is seized is an objective test, 
Hodari D. further refined the test.  See id. at 627-28.   
Defendant acknowledges that under Hodari D., he was not seized until he 
submitted to police authority by stopping his car, but argues that this Court should reject 
the Hodari D. analysis in this case.  This Court finds Hodari D. controlling here.  See, 
e.g., Deck, 994 S.W.2d at 535.  By leading police on a “moderate speed chase,” 
Defendant violated numerous traffic laws and provided Oklahoma authorities with 
probable cause to stop him for those violations.  Because Defendant was not seized until 
he yielded to police by stopping his car, and because there was probable cause to stop 
him for the traffic violations, the stop in Oklahoma did not violate the Fourth 
Amendment.  As the evidence seized from his car was the result of a lawful stop, it was 
admissible.              
13 
 
Evidence Seized from Defendant’s Apartment Was Admissible 
 
Defendant next argues that the evidence seized from his apartment should have 
been suppressed because there was not sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant.   
 
When determining whether there is probable cause to issue a search warrant, a 
court looks at the totality of the circumstances to decide whether there is a fair probability 
that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.  Illinois v. 
Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).  The decision should be based on the information in the 
affidavit, including the “basis of knowledge” and truthfulness of the persons providing 
hearsay information.  Id.  A court is limited to looking only within the four corners of the 
search warrant application.  State v. Laws, 801 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Mo. banc 1990).   
This Court gives great deference to the initial judicial determination of whether 
there was probable cause to issue a warrant.  State v. Neher, 213 S.W.3d 44, 49 (Mo. 
banc 2007).  Accordingly, a decision on a motion to suppress evidence for an insufficient 
warrant is reviewed for clear error.  Id.     
There was probable cause here.  Approximately four hours after Victim’s death 
was discovered, Missouri authorities applied for a search warrant for Defendant’s 
apartment.  In the application, the detective stated that he arrived at the scene to find the 
bodies of two victims and spent cartridges from a 9-millimeter weapon.  He included the 
following information in his sworn affidavit:  (1) the neighbor had voice messages on her 
cell phone from Defendant with a “threatening tone” toward Victim; (2) Victim told the 
landlord that Defendant was threatening her and that she wanted to move because she 
was afraid of Defendant; (3) the landlord had told Defendant he needed to move out;    
14 
 
(4) court records indicated that Victim had applied for an order of protection from 
Defendant; and (5) Defendant’s former employer had fired Defendant for harassing and 
stalking Victim.  The police searched Defendant’s apartment pursuant to the search 
warrant.  They recovered an empty box of 9-millimeter shells, 9-millimeter ammunition, 
and a template for a 9-millimeter STEN machine gun, in addition to other gun-related 
accessories.  
 
Defendant argues the affidavit did not supply the requisite probable cause for 
numerous reasons.  First, he contends the application did not identify the neighbor who 
relayed the threatening voice messages so there was nothing to substantiate her veracity, 
and the officer did not indicate whether he listened to the messages.  Additionally, it did 
not include when Defendant allegedly left the voice messages or the content of the 
messages.  He identifies similar issues with the landlord’s statements, namely that the 
application did not state what threats Defendant had allegedly made to Victim or give 
details related to how Victim had received the threats that made her want to move.  He 
argues that the application did not include the date that Victim had applied for the order 
of protection, nor did it include when Defendant had been fired from his job or who 
determined that Defendant had been stalking and harassing Victim.   
 
These arguments are unpersuasive.  A court can judge the veracity of an informant 
by determining whether the information is corroborated.  See Neher, 213 S.W.3d at 50.  
The neighbor, the landlord, Defendant’s former employer and Victim’s application for an 
order of protection all indicated that there was an ongoing and present concern that 
Defendant had been threatening or harassing Victim.  While the affidavit does not set out 
15 
 
a timeline of these threats or the content of the threats, it does identify four different 
sources indicating that Defendant had been threatening, stalking or harassing Victim.  
Based on the information in the affidavit, there was probable cause to believe there would 
be evidence of the crime in Defendant’s home. 
Evidence of Other Weapons and Ammunition Unrelated to the Crime 
 
During the trial, the state introduced photos of 15 weapons and several rounds of 
unspent ammunition recovered from Defendant’s car, even though only one was 
identified as the murder weapon.  He argues the 14 weapons and unspent ammunition 
that were not alleged to be used during the crime were inadmissible because they were 
inherently prejudicial and did not have any probative value.     
 
A trial court has wide discretion in deciding whether to admit evidence, and its 
decision will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion.  See State v. Anderson, 76 
S.W.3d 275, 276 (Mo. banc 2002).   
For evidence to be admissible, it must be logically and legally relevant to the case.  
Id.  Evidence is logically relevant if it has probative value, meaning it tends to make the 
existence of a material fact more or less probable.  Id.  Evidence is legally relevant if its 
probative value outweighs any costs of using the evidence, such as unfair prejudice.  Id.   
 
In this case, the 14 guns and ammunition that were not alleged to have been used 
to commit the murder were logically relevant because they were found in Defendant’s car 
during his flight from Jefferson City directly after the murders.  Evidence of flight is 
admissible to show consciousness of guilt.  See State v. Johns, 34 S.W.3d 93, 112 (Mo. 
banc 2000).  Moreover, “the methodology of . . . flight is probative as to the quality and 
16 
 
depth of this consciousness.”  Id. (finding evidence that defendant held someone hostage 
when confronted by police was admissible in a murder trial in which the victim was not 
also the hostage).  The fact that Defendant left Jefferson City right after the murders 
occurred and did so armed with 14 other guns and ammunition was probative of his guilt.   
 
Defendant argues that the evidence was inadmissible because its prejudicial effect 
outweighed its probative value.  He relies on a line of cases that stand for the principle 
that “weapons unconnected with either the accused or the offense for which he is 
standing trial lack any probative value and their admission into evidence is inherently 
prejudicial.”  See, e.g., State v. Grant, 810 S.W.2d 591, 592 (Mo. App. 1991).   
These cases, however, are distinguishable from the instant case because the 
weapons and ammunition were directly connected to Defendant and the first-degree 
murder charge.  They were found in his possession shortly after the murders took place.  
Cf. State v. Krebs, 106 S.W.2d 428, 429 (Mo. 1937) (a gun found on defendant that was 
unlike the weapon involved in the crime was inadmissible when defendant was arrested 
two months after the incident).  Defendant was the only passenger in the car and did not 
claim they belonged to someone else.  Cf. State v. Perry, 689 S.W.2d 123, 124-25 (Mo. 
App. 1985) (gun was inadmissible when it was unlike the one used in the crime and it 
was found in a car that defendant borrowed from his mother and was riding in as a 
passenger).  Additionally, the weapons and ammunition were related to the crime charged 
because they were part of his direct flight from the crime scene and tended to show a 
consciousness of guilt.  Cf. State v. Holbert, 416 S.W.2d 129, 132-33 (Mo. 1967) (when 
defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, evidence of two other guns 
17 
 
unrelated to the charge were inadmissible). 
 
The 14 other weapons and ammunition were highly probative to show 
consciousness of guilt.  Further, any prejudicial effect they would have had was 
minimized by admitting only photographs of the evidence, not the guns and ammunition 
themselves.  Additionally, numerous other weapons that were found in Defendant’s 
apartment and storage shed were introduced at trial, eliminating any prejudicial value of 
the weapons from his car.7  Any prejudicial effect the photographs may have had did not 
outweigh the probative value of the evidence.  It was not an abuse of discretion to admit 
them. 
Victim’s Statements Were Admissible 
 
Defendant next argues that the admission of Victim’s statements on the 
application for an order of protection violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.  
He also argues that the letter she wrote and statements she made to the landlord should 
have been excluded as hearsay.  Whether testimony violates the confrontation clause is a 
question of law this Court reviews de novo.  State v. Justus, 205 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Mo. 
banc 2006).  This Court reviews a decision to admit hearsay evidence for an abuse of 
discretion.  State v. Bell, 950 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Mo. banc 1997).   
Order of Protection Statements 
 
At trial, the state introduced the Victim’s application for an order of protection 
against Defendant that was found on her body the night of the murders.  Some statements 
                                                          
 
7 Defendant does not challenge the admissibility of any of the weapons found in his apartment 
and storage shed in this appeal.   
18 
 
from the application were read to the jury, although it was not published to the jury.  The 
prosecutor relied on the following statements from the document during his closing 
argument: “Ex-lovers.  He knows everywhere I go, who I go with, who comes to my 
home, and is harassing me, calling JCPD for no reason. . . . He stalks me every day, has 
called JCPD on me Sat., Monday.”   
 
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 unless the witness was unavailable to 
testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.  Crawford 
v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004).  A statement is testimonial if it is given while 
there is no emergency in progress and it is made for the purposes of establishing or 
proving past events relevant to later criminal prosecution.  Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 
813, 822, 829 (2006).   
Assuming the statements were inadmissible under the confrontation clause, they 
are admissible under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine.  This doctrine provides that if 
the defendant procured the declarant’s absence with the intent of preventing the declarant 
from testifying against the defendant, then the declarant’s hearsay statements may be 
admissible.  Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008).  Giles addresses the intersection of 
19 
 
the confrontation clause and the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine in the context of 
abusive relationships: 
Acts of domestic violence often are intended to dissuade the 
victim from resorting to outside help, and include conduct 
designed to prevent testimony to police officers or 
cooperation in criminal prosecutions.  Where such an abusive 
relationship culminates in murder, the evidence may support a 
finding that the crime expressed the intent to isolate the 
victim and to stop her from reporting abuse to the authorities 
or cooperating with a criminal prosecution – rendering her 
prior statements admissible under the forfeiture doctrine.  
Earlier abuse, or threats of abuse, intended to dissuade the 
victim from resorting to outside help would be highly relevant 
to this inquiry, as would evidence of ongoing criminal 
proceedings at which the victim would have been expected to 
testify. 
 
Id. at 377 (emphasis added). 
 
Shortly after Giles was decided, this Court applied the forfeiture by wrongdoing 
doctrine in State v. McLaughlin, 265 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. banc 2008).  In McLaughlin, the 
defendant was on trial for the first-degree murder of his ex-girlfriend.  In the course of 
ending their relationship, the victim had filed for multiple protective orders against the 
defendant.  At the time of her death, there were pending abuse and burglary charges 
against him in which she was the complaining witness.  This Court found that the 
victim’s statements regarding requests for police protection and the defendant’s harassing 
and threatening conduct towards her was admissible under Giles.  Id. at 272.  It noted that 
there was ample evidence that defendant had killed the victim to keep her from testifying, 
such as the fact that she made the statements while trying to end their relationship and 
that she had sought various orders of protection.  Id. at 273 n.10. 
20 
 
As in McLaughlin, the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine applies in this case.  
There was ample evidence from the neighbors, the landlord, and Defendant’s former 
employer that Defendant had been harassing Victim before her death and that Victim had 
sought judicial intervention.  While there was not an active order of protection against 
Defendant, Victim had applied for a protective order, and Defendant was not served 
because he was out of town.  Under Giles and McLauglin, Victim’s statements were 
admissible under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine as Defendant’s actions were 
intended to cause Victim to be unavailable to testify.   
Victim’s Statements to the Landlord 
Defendant also argues that the statements Victim made to the landlord about 
Defendant and the letter she sent the landlord were inadmissible hearsay.  The landlord 
testified that Victim told him that Defendant had entered her apartment without her 
permission, which led the landlord to tell Defendant he no longer had permission to enter 
Victim’s apartment building.  In the letter, Victim requested a new apartment because she 
was afraid of Defendant.8   
                                                          
 
8 The trial court admitted a redacted copy of the letter, which read: 
Dear Dennis, 
 
 
This is Angie Gilpin, 1100 W. High apt. 2.  I am writing you ,to [sic] inquire as to 
weather [sic] you may have any other apartment rentals anywhere else in town.  I can no longer 
live next door to David Hosier. . . . I have gone to the Court House and filled [sic] for a 
restraining order. 
. . . .  
Anyway, If [sic] you have anything else, I would be interested in looking.  I have liked 
my apartment, and renting from you.  I’m sorry for all the B.S. Believe me, he scares me.  I don’t 
know what he will do next.  
 Sincerely, 
Angie 
21 
 
As discussed above, these statements were admissible under the forfeiture by 
wrongdoing doctrine. 
Sufficient Evidence Supported Defendant’s Burglary Conviction 
Defendant next argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him of first-
degree burglary.  Appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence is limited to whether 
the state has introduced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have 
found each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 
500, 508-09 (Mo. banc 2011).  This Court does not reweigh the evidence but, rather, 
considers it in the light most favorable to the verdict and grants the state all reasonable 
inferences.  Id. at 509.   
A defendant commits first-degree burglary when “he knowingly enters unlawfully 
or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure for the purpose of 
committing a crime therein.”  See section 569.160.9  A person enters or remains 
unlawfully on a property “when he is not licensed or privileged to do so.”  Section 
569.010(8). 
Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him of burglary 
because there were no signs of forced entry at the crime scene and it is possible that, if 
Defendant was present there, someone invited him into the building.  While that is 
possible, it is not the test.  The evidence showed that the landlord expressly told 
Defendant he was no longer allowed into Victim’s building.  From the landlord’s 
testimony and Victim’s body in the hallway of her building, there was sufficient evidence 
                                                          
 
9 All references are to RSMo 2000. 
22 
 
from which a reasonable juror could find that Defendant entered the building unlawfully.  
The evidence further showed that Defendant asked his neighbor to call his family and 
check on his storage locker “in case something happened” and then left Jefferson City 
directly after the murders.  This was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror 
could find that Defendant entered the building with the intent to commit a murder.  
Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence that Defendant committed first-degree 
burglary. 
Note Found in Defendant’s Car was Admissible 
 
Defendant finally argues that the note the police found in his car was inadmissible 
because the state did not prove that Defendant wrote it and, therefore, it was not 
authenticated.  As a result, he argues, it was irrelevant and hearsay.  The note read: 
If you are going with someone do not lie to them, do not play 
games with them, do not f*** them over by telling other 
people things that are not true, do not blame them for things 
that they have not done.  Be honest with them and tell them if 
there is something wrong.  If you do not, this could happen to 
YOU!!  People do not like being f***** with, and after so 
much s*** they can go off the deep end!!  Had to [sic] much 
s***!!! 
 
Police found this note in Defendant’s car when they searched it in Oklahoma, where he 
fled after the murders.  The note was handwritten, but it was undated and unsigned.   
Whether there was a sufficient foundation to admit evidence is within the trial 
court’s broad discretion, and the trial court’s decision  is reviewed for an abuse of 
discretion.  State v. Copeland, 928 S.W.2d 828, 846 (Mo. banc 1996), overruled on other 
grounds by Joy v. Morrison, 254 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. banc 2008).  Before a document can 
23 
 
be admitted into evidence, the proponent must lay the foundation for the document, 
including authenticity.  Id.  A document can be authenticated by circumstantial evidence.  
See id. 
In this case, circumstantial evidence authenticated the note.  It was found in 
Defendant’s car that had been in continuous flight from the murder scene.  It was written 
on the same type of paper as the note he left on his neighbor’s car.  The sentiment of the 
note was consistent with communications about his relationship with Victim to his 
neighbors and the statements he made to police to “just end it” when he finally stopped 
his car.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.   
Proportionality 
 
This Court has an independent duty to review each case in which a defendant is 
sentenced to death.  Section 565.035.  This statute requires this Court to look at three 
factors: (1) whether the sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, 
or any other arbitrary factor; (2) whether the evidence supports the jury’s finding of 
statutory aggravating factors as defined in section 565.032; and (3) whether the sentence 
of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, 
considering the crime, the strength of the evidence and the defendant.  Section 565.035.3.   
 
First, this Court looks at whether the sentence was imposed under the influence of 
passion, prejudice or any arbitrary factor.  Defendant has not argued that it was, and there 
is nothing in the record that leads this Court to find the jury recommended the death 
penalty for any reason aside from the evidence presented. 
24 
 
 
Second, this Court looks to whether the evidence supported the finding of 
aggravating circumstances.  Section 565.032 outlines the statutory aggravating 
circumstances that would justify a fact finder to impose the death penalty.  Those factors 
include that the defendant had one or more serious assaultive criminal convictions and 
that the murder was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of 
another unlawful homicide.  Section 565.032.2(1)-(2).  These were the factors the jury 
found in this case, and there was evidence to support these findings.  The government 
showed that Defendant had been previously convicted for assault and battery in 1993 
when he handcuffed another girlfriend and beat her until she passed out.  Additionally, 
Victim’s murder was committed while Defendant was engaged in the murder of 
Husband. 
 
The last factor is whether the sentence was proportional to the penalty imposed in 
similar cases, considering the crime, the strength of the evidence and the defendant.  The 
death penalty has been assessed in cases involving multiple victims.  See, e.g., State v. 
Wolfe, 13 S.W.3d 248 (Mo. banc 2000); State v. Johnson, 968 S.W.2d 123 (Mo. banc 
1998); State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320 (Mo. banc 1993); State v. Mease, 842 S.W.2d 98 
(Mo. banc 1992).  It has also been imposed in cases where the defendant had prior 
assaultive convictions.  See, e.g., State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. banc 2012); 
State v. Davis, 318 S.W.3d 618 (Mo. banc 2010); State v. Barton, 240 S.W.3d 693 (Mo. 
banc 2007).  This Court does not find Defendant’s sentence to be disproportionate.   
 
This Court independently researched cases that resulted in life imprisonment 
without the possibility of probation or parole.  No similar cases involving the stalking and 
25 
 
harassment of the victim, the murder of both the victim and her husband by multiple 
gunshots, and a police chase in another state have been identified which would support a 
finding that his death sentence is disproportionate.  The imposition of the death penalty 
meets the statutory requirements.   
Conclusion 
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 
 
_________________________ 
Mary R. Russell, Chief Justice 
 
 
All concur.