Opinion ID: 1652376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Evidence of Deliberation

Text: Morrow put his ability to deliberate at issue from his opening statement to his closing argument. [3] Morrow insists that as a result of his cocaine binge, he lacked the ability to deliberate. One expert witness testified that Morrow was reduced to an automaton, and that the cocaine rendered him incapable of deliberating prior to his shooting of Mr. Koprowski. Because deliberation is something the jurors can not see and is seldom capable of direct proof, [f]indings of deliberation ... depend usually `upon an inference reasonably drawn from the evidence and circumstances surrounding the act.' State v. Kenley, 693 S.W.2d 79, 81-82 (Mo. banc 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1098, 106 S.Ct. 1500, 89 L.Ed.2d 900 (1986) (citation omitted). In Roberts , appellant murdered a woman, then stole her car. There we held that evidence of appellant's statement that he wanted a gun to kill the person that later stole his victim's car from him was admissible to show a coherent picture of the charged crime and to show that the defendant had the ability to deliberate. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d at 591. See also Skillicorn, 944 S.W.2d at 887 (evidence of a subsequent assault was relevant to establish defendant's deliberation in a murder earlier that day). Morrow argues that the only relevant inquiry is into his mental state at the time he murdered Koprowski. Morrow himself, however, broadened this inquiry by arguing that his cocaine addiction rendered him incapable of deliberating over a long period of timea period of time that included the time when he murdered both Koprowski and Abercrombie. A jury could see that during this crime spree Morrow was undertaking acts that involved thought and deliberation. This evidence demonstrated that Morrow was not reduced to an automaton. For example, evidence of deliberation is found in the circumstances surrounding the Abercrombie murder and the theft of Maston's Oldsmobile. An inference of deliberation arises when observing the way Morrow marched Abercrombie to a vacant lot before killing him. In addition, there was evidence of his attempts to cover up his crime. Immediately after murdering Abercrombie, Morrow reasoned that he needed to get out of town. He did just that, leaving the car used when murdering Abercrombie in Illinois and stealing Maston's Oldsmobile to return to St. Louis. Further, when commenting on the murder, Morrow spoke of a misunderstanding and, subsequently, having to put the little guy to sleep. Instead of speaking of what he instinctively did or what suddenly happened, Morrow spoke of the murder as something he had to do. This indicated that he felt that killing another human being was the appropriate response.... Roberts, 948 S.W.2d at 591. A jury could reasonably infer that Morrow deliberated when deciding what he had to do. [4] Other examples of Morrow's ability to deliberate are found in the circumstances surrounding the robberies of Marsha Timm and Sandra Merriman. Timm and Merriman were deliberately selected by Morrow because they were both carrying handbags and both appeared vulnerable. Morrow waited until Merriman was inside a revolving door before he robbed her and he robbed Timm at night, while she was by herself pumping gas into her car. As with the other crimes, these circumstances show that Morrow was not an unthinking zombie but a person capable of evaluating opportunities and taking deliberate actions. The evidence was also properly used to impeach the credibility of Morrow's pharmacologist, Roswell Evans, who said that Morrow was unable to deliberate. Questioning about this evidence made Evans concede that Morrow engaged in purposeful behavior and that Morrow may have been making some judgments in the period of time surrounding the murder of Koprowski. A tension necessarily exists between excluding evidence of uncharged crimes and admitting evidence to show the complete and coherent picture of the crime at issue. Admission of such evidence requires a balancing of the effect and value of the evidence and rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Bernard, 849 S.W.2d 10, 13 (Mo. banc 1993). Special care should be taken by the trial court in determining this balance, especially when the evidence of the uncharged crimes extends too far in time or nature from the crime at issue. Here, the evidence in question was probative of the issues of deliberation and was so intertwined with the evidence of the charged crimes that it easily passes the test set out in State v. Harris , State v. Skillicorn , State v. Roberts , and State v. Bernard, as well. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Point denied.