Opinion ID: 4427271
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gun evidence properly admitted

Text: Wood claims the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting photographs and testimony regarding firearms, ammunition, and related items found in his home. Wood argues the evidence was logically irrelevant and prejudicial because the only possible 5 Wood argues the photographs may have affected the jury's subsequent deliberations in the separate penalty phase. This speculative argument fails because the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photographs in the guilt phase. 10 purpose was to show he was a gun-crazed, dangerous person with a propensity for violence. Evidence of weapons not connected to the accused or the offense at issue are generally inadmissible. State v. Hosier, 454 S.W.3d 883, 895 (Mo. banc 2015). Because Wood's sole defense during the guilt phase was lack of deliberation, the state's case hinged on showing deliberation. The evidence of firearms of varying calibers and gauges found throughout Wood's home shortly after he killed Hailey was logically and legally relevant to show deliberation because it tended to prove Wood deliberately chose the smallest weapon from his collection to facilitate his efforts to cover up the murder. In addition to Wood foregoing the multiple weapons stored throughout the house, the evidence also showed that in the bedroom where the evidence suggested Wood raped Hailey, officers found a shotgun leaning against the wall and a large-caliber handgun on the nightstand next to the bed. Wood used neither one of those readily accessible weapons. Instead, Wood used the small, .22-caliber rifle officers found locked in a gun safe in the basement. The state made precisely this point during closing argument: He deliberately unloads and hides the rifle. Do you remember all those guns he had around of a higher caliber? In fact, when he's raping her in the bedroom, he's got a handgun right there he could have used. Does he use that? No, he doesn't. He chooses the smallest caliber weapon he has, that will make the least mess and the least noise, and then he hides it in the gun safe, doesn't leave it out like the other guns, and he unloads that magazine. The state's closing argument emphasized and was consistent with the fact the gun evidence was both logically and legally relevant to refute Wood's argument he did not deliberately kill Hailey. The dissenting opinion, by relying on fundamentally 11 distinguishable cases, overlooks the fact the logical and legal relevance was amplified by the number of weapons precisely because it showed Wood deliberately chose the .22-caliber rifle even though multiple other weapons were more readily accessible. 6 Further, unlike the cases cited by the dissenting opinion, any alleged prejudicial effect of the gun evidence was minimized by admitting only photographs of the evidence, not the guns and ammunition themselves. Id. at 896. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion 6 The dissenting opinion's argument that allowing the state to carry its burden of proving deliberation by showing Wood chose the smallest weapon from his large collection requires jettisoning of decades of case law is based on a misreading of that case law. Missouri law cautions against evidence of weapons unrelated to the offense, particularly when the weapons themselves are displayed to the jury. The cases cited by the dissent illustrate this principle. For instance, in State v. Wynne, 182 S.W.2d 294, 297 (Mo. 1944), the issuing opinion was whether the appellant was unfairly and unjustly prejudiced by the prosecuting attorney's exhibition and demonstration with a pistol as he cross-examined her. This Court held the appellant was prejudiced because, as the court told the jury, the .25-caliber gun in question had no connection whatever with the defendant or the crime. Id. at 299. Similarly, in State v. Perry, 689 S.W.2d 123, 124-25 (Mo. App. 1985), the court held the defendant was prejudiced by admitting the loaded 20-gauge shotgun into evidence because it had no relation to the defendant and the alleged robbery occurred by means of a 'handgun' or 'pistol.' In State v. Charles, 572 S.W.2d 195, 199 (Mo. App. 1978), the court of appeals reversed murder and robbery convictions because the circuit court erroneously permitted the state to prove collateral criminal offenses never admitted or for which there was no conviction . . . by the admission of lethal weapons totally foreign to the offense for which an accused is standing trial. Finally, in State v. Holbert, 416 S.W.2d 129, 133 (Mo. 1967), this Court reversed a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon because the circuit court erroneously permitted the state to introduce two unrelated pistols into evidence, leave the pistols in bags on the counsel table, and pass the pistols to the jury for examination. In Holbert, the prejudice resulted from the fact the pistol recovered from the defendant's shirt pocket was admitted without objection and was in no way connected with the present offense involving a weapon recovered from the defendant's pants pocket. Id. Conversely, the photographs and testimony regarding weapons found throughout Wood's residence were both logically and legally relevant to the central, disputed element of deliberation. 12 by overruling Wood's objection to evidence of the firearms, ammunition, and related items found throughout his home. 7