Opinion ID: 2460227
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Bloody Jeans

Text: Police found and seized a bloody pair of jeans hidden under Federhofer's bed. This discovery occurred only after police moved the bed. The jeans could not be seen without moving the bed. Arizona v. Hicks holds that moving an item to discover its serial number constitutes a search, even if the item is otherwise in plain view, if there is no probable cause to believe that the item relates to a crime. The cursory search the Fourth Amendment permits under these circumstances does not authorize the police to rely on the plain-view exception to move items of furniture. [1] Moving this bed is not reasonable under either a plain-view or protective-sweep analysis. The trial court erred in failing to suppress the bloody jeans.
Trial court error does not require reversal unless there is a reasonable probability that the trial court's error affected the outcome of the trial. State v. Cook, 628 S.W.2d 657 (Mo. banc 1982). Otherwise, the error not prejudicial. The state introduced the broken rifle as one of the weapons Johnston used to beat his wife. The evidence revealed that Johnston also used his steel-toed boots, as Bounds testified, to kick her like a football, stomping like ... a tin can, if I was trying to flatten it. Naomi Runtz saw Johnston kicking and stomping his victim outside her bedroom window. Robyn Romanchuk saw Johnston beat Nancy Johnston with a lawn chair. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnston beat his wife savagely and over a long period of time did not depend on evidence of the rifle. At most, the rifle was cumulative and its presence added very little to the state's case when one considers the overwhelming, independent evidence of Johnston's guilt and the level of his malevolent brutality. Failure to suppress the rifle and the decision to admit it into evidence was not prejudicial error. As evidence, the bloody jeans are not necessary to prove that Johnston killed his wife. Again, other evidence established that fact beyond doubt. The bloody jeans could serve another purpose, however, they are evidence of Johnston's guilty mind and speak to the issue of deliberation. Contrary to Johnston's argument, the jeans are not alone in revealing Johnston's guilty mind. The bloody washcloth found in the bathroom shows that Johnston cleaned himself before calling for help. In addition, Johnston's own confessioninduced without reference to the police discovery of the bloody jeans ( see III C) make the point that Johnston tried to hide his participation in the beating by hiding evidence of his guilt. Johnston's confession, therefore, is clear proof of Johnston's guilty knowledge. The trial court's failure to suppress the jeans was not prejudicial error.
Johnston's point on appeal under discussion here actually claimed that the illegally seized evidence was then used to obtain a confession from Tim so that the confession was tainted and should have been suppressed. The record does not support this contention. At the police station, police confronted Johnston with the fact that his statement conflicted with the statements made by witnesses, not evidence. Maier testified: Q. Did you confront him with any facts at that point? A. [Maier] I basically told him I didn't believe him and that what he's telling me is completely inconsistent with what witnesses at the scene or near the scene had said. [Emphasis added.] Q. How did he react when you told him you didn't believe him? A. He began to cry. Q. And did he make a further statement at that point when he began to cry? A. Yes, he did Q. What did he say? A. He said she is the only thing I got. He said he'd kill the mother f[]s if he catches them. . . . . Q. After fingernail scrapings were taken, did you ask him any questions about his clothes A. Yes, sir. Q. what he was wearing? What did he say? A. Said that they were under the bed in the residence in Michael's room. Q. Did he tell you that he had changed clothes that night? A. Yes, sir. . . . . Q. Did he admit to you that he had thrown those blue jeans under Michael's bed? A. Yes, sir. Without being confronted with any physical evidence, Johnston volunteered to the police that he changed clothes and hid his blood-covered jeans under Federhofer's bed. He offered the location of the jeans prior to knowing that the police had found them. Therefore, the discovery of the jeans could not have tainted the confession. The point is denied.