Masters v. People, No. 01SC291.

Docket NºNo. 01SC291.
Citation58 P.3d 979
Case DateOctober 15, 2002
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

58 P.3d 979

Timothy MASTERS, Petitioner,
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent

No. 01SC291.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

October 15, 2002.


Rehearing Denied December 16, 2002.1

58 P.3d 983
Carrigan, Chambers, Dansky & Zonies, P.C., Nathan D. Chambers, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner

Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Elizabeth Rohrbough, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent.

Justice RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.

A jury convicted Defendant, Timothy Masters, of first degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. Defendant petitioned this court for certiorari review of three evidentiary issues and that review was granted. We now affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Peggy Hettrick's body was found lying in an open field in Fort Collins, Colorado on the morning of February 11, 1987. A bicyclist, passing by the field on his way to work, discovered the body and immediately informed the police. The body had been partially disrobed and positioned on its back with the legs slightly apart and arms over its head. The right breast and pubic area were exposed. The left nipple and a portion of the victim's vagina had been excised with a very sharp instrument, possibly a scalpel. There were also distinctive scratch marks on the victim's face.

The Larimer County Coroner determined that the victim had been stabbed in the back by a serrated knife with a five inch blade. The blow lacerated her left lung and left pulmonary artery, resulting in massive blood loss. She died within minutes of the attack.

On the curb of the street adjacent to the field where the victim's body was found, the police discovered a large pool of blood with a half-smoked cigarette belonging to Peggy Hettrick lying in the middle. This, along with other evidence, led them to believe that the knife wound in the victim's back was caused by "a surprise attack from behind at the location of the blood pool on the street curb." After delivering the fatal wound, a bloody trail indicated that the perpetrator dragged the victim's body 103.5 feet into the field where it was found.

The body was left within several hundred feet of Defendant's home, and could be seen from Defendant's bedroom window. Accordingly, at approximately 10:00 a.m. that morning, Defendant was contacted at his high school concerning the murder. When asked whether he knew why the detectives were there, Defendant nodded and said that "it had been bothering him." Elaborating, Defendant told the detectives that he had seen a body as he was walking to catch the school bus that morning. He did not report it, he explained, because he thought it was a mannequin. Later, Defendant said he did not report the body because he thought it was a trick and did not want to be made fun of. In addition to his own admission, a footprint found in the bloody drag trail close to the body indicated that Defendant had been there that morning.

Subsequently, the police conducted consensual searches of Defendant's bedroom, locker, and backpack. In Defendant's bedroom, police found a large collection of knives and swords. The collection included six survival knives with long blades — one of which had a hollow handle containing a scalpel. The police also found a suitcase containing pornographic photographs of female genitalia and a large number of writings and drawings Defendant had produced. In Defendant's backpack and locker, police discovered more writings and drawings produced by Defendant, including two maps of the crime scene. A third set of drawings and writings was seized by police in 1998 when Defendant was arrested. In all, police seized approximately 2200 pages of written material produced by

58 P.3d 984
Defendant; over 1000 of these were admitted into evidence

Defendant's writings and drawings are graphic and often repulsive. They indicate that Defendant was deeply fascinated with death, particularly with death by stabbing or slicing. There are numerous drawings of survival knives, and knives, of one sort or another, are frequently the instrument of murder in Defendant's productions. Many of the victims in Defendant's productions are killed from behind in a surprise attack or have distinctive scratch marks on their faces. Pools or trails of blood often accompany images of murder, torture, decapitation, or dismemberment.

Hatred of women is a common theme throughout many of the Defendant's productions, and much of the violence is associated with sexual overtones. For example, in one narrative that approaches 150 pages in length Defendant relates a world in which a group of boys, the Recons, are at war with a group of girls, the Reds. At one point, a character named Madic, with whom Defendant identifies himself, states that "[i]t gave me a hard-on to see at least ten Reds drop instantly." In another, more graphic example, there is a drawing of a knife slicing through what appears to be a vagina.

Although there are multiple pictures and narratives evincing similarities to Peggy Hettrick's murder, there is not a single image or passage that duplicates the crime. There is not a picture of, or story about, a woman being stabbed in the back or having her nipple excised.

In addition to Defendant's written material and unusual behavior on the morning after the murder, substantial other evidence pointed to the Defendant as the perpetrator of this murder. First, there were several similarities between Defendant's mother and Peggy Hettrick. Ms. Hettrick was killed almost exactly four years after the death of Defendant's mother. The memory of his mother's death was apparently still fresh in the Defendant's mind. Two Mother's Day cards, made by Defendant when his mother was still alive, were found in his backpack on the day after the attack. A photocopy of her death certificate was found in the kitchen in his residence. Ms. Hettrick, like Defendant's mother, had long, wavy red hair. Defendant admitted that, although he did not know Ms. Hettrick's name, he might have seen her around the neighborhood.

Second, one particular drawing found in Defendant's backpack the day after the victim's body was found aroused suspicion. The drawing depicts a person dragging a body of another by the armpits. Blood drips from the back of the body as it is dragged, leaving a bloody trail. This is exactly how investigators suppose the victim was moved from the street to the field. When asked why he drew the drawing, Defendant told investigators that he drew it to "get something out of his system" because it was bothering him. However, the prosecutor pointed out that Defendant could not have known, based solely on his observations on the morning after the murder, that the victim had been dragged in that manner.

Third, a detective asked Defendant whether he had ever thought about committing this type of murder. Defendant responded that he had.

Fourth, the nature of the wound inflicted on the victim suggested that the perpetrator was left-handed. Defendant was left-handed.

Fifth, Defendant possessed the specialized weapons necessary to commit the crime. The wounds inflicted upon Ms. Hettrick required two weapons: a serrated knife with a blade at least five inches in length and a precise cutting instrument such as a scalpel. The former was used to inflict the deadly injury; the latter to carry out the subsequent mutilation. Police recovered six survival knives in Defendant's bedroom, all of which had hollow handles. Inside one of these handles, police discovered a scalpel.

Sixth, Defendant showed that he was familiar with the characteristics of the weapon used. While interrogating the Defendant, a detective told Defendant that stabbing someone with a serrated blade would cause a lot of damage. Defendant, after receiving and waiving Miranda warnings, replied, "Yeah, but it would be tough to pull it back out."

58 P.3d 985
Finally, Defendant showed that he was familiar with specific details of the crime. First, he told detectives that he thought the victim was wearing pink shoes. In fact, she was not; her socks were pink. However, because her pants had been pulled down, her socks would not have been visible to someone merely walking by the crime scene. In another interview with law enforcement, Defendant was asked if he had any suggestions concerning the investigation. Defendant suggested that the detective canvas a ditch near a particular bridge. Six months later, a survival knife with a serrated blade and hollow handle was found in this ditch very close to the bridge. At trial, the coroner opined that the serration on that knife could account for the irregularity in the stab wound in the victim's back

Notwithstanding this circumstantial evidence, no direct evidence was found to link Defendant to the crime. As a result, he was not immediately charged.

Ten years later, the Fort Collins police department retained Dr. Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist and expert in sexual homicide, as a consultant in this case. After reviewing the evidence in the case, including all of Defendant's drawings and writings seized from his bedroom, backpack, and locker, Dr. Meloy prepared a report implicating Defendant in the death of Peggy Hettrick. In 1998, based on Dr. Meloy's conclusions, as well as the other evidence in the case, the police arrested Defendant at his Ridgecrest, California home. Police also seized additional drawings and narratives Defendant had created after the crime, as well as other items, from which Dr. Meloy prepared a second report.

Defendant was tried for first degree murder in 1999. Prior to trial, Defense counsel filed a motion in limine arguing that Dr. Meloy's testimony interpreting Defendant's drawings and writings as well as the drawings and writings themselves, must be excluded pursuant to CRE 404 because: (1) Dr. Meloy's testimony and Defendant's drawings and writings were evidence of Defendant's bad character; and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 practice notes
  • Krutsinger v. People, No. 08SC378.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 13 Octubre 2009
    ...320, 327 (Colo.2006); Medina v. People, 114 P.3d 845, 857 (Colo.2005); People v. Welsh, 80 P.3d 296, 310 (Colo.2003); Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979, 1002-03 (Colo.2002). We have not, however, always maintained the Supreme Court's strict hierarchical distinction between a "reasonable possib......
  • State v. Torres, No. S–10–111.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 3 Febrero 2012
    ...1277 (2010); State v. Johnson, 340 Or. 319, 131 P.3d 173 (2006); State v. Clifford, 328 Mont. 300, 121 P.3d 489 (2005); Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979 (Colo.2002). 9. See, 1 Imwinkelried, supra note 2, § 2:19; 1 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 4:28 (3d ed.2......
  • State v. Lassiter, No. 22854.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 12 Enero 2005
    ...Schurman v. Leonardo, 768 F.Supp. 993 (S.D.N.Y.1991); State v. Jackson, 82 Ohio App. 318, 81 N.E.2d 546 (Ct.App. 1948); Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979 12. Although this Court attempts to distinguish Johnson, noting that it discussed the "substantial similarities" of those two offenses, that......
  • State Carolina v. Brown, No. COA09–1693.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 3 Mayo 2011
    ...link), Rule 404 automatically excludes the evidence.”); United States v. Desmarais, 938 F.2d 347, 350 (1st Cir.1991); Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979, 996 (Colo.2002); State v. Hopson, 735 So.2d 81, 87 (La.Ct.App. 5th Cir.1999); People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 376, 582 N.W.2d 785, 794 (1998); ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
101 cases
  • Krutsinger v. People, No. 08SC378.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 13 Octubre 2009
    ...320, 327 (Colo.2006); Medina v. People, 114 P.3d 845, 857 (Colo.2005); People v. Welsh, 80 P.3d 296, 310 (Colo.2003); Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979, 1002-03 (Colo.2002). We have not, however, always maintained the Supreme Court's strict hierarchical distinction between a "reasonable possib......
  • State v. Torres, No. S–10–111.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 3 Febrero 2012
    ...1277 (2010); State v. Johnson, 340 Or. 319, 131 P.3d 173 (2006); State v. Clifford, 328 Mont. 300, 121 P.3d 489 (2005); Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979 (Colo.2002). 9. See, 1 Imwinkelried, supra note 2, § 2:19; 1 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 4:28 (3d ed.2......
  • State v. Lassiter, No. 22854.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 12 Enero 2005
    ...Schurman v. Leonardo, 768 F.Supp. 993 (S.D.N.Y.1991); State v. Jackson, 82 Ohio App. 318, 81 N.E.2d 546 (Ct.App. 1948); Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979 12. Although this Court attempts to distinguish Johnson, noting that it discussed the "substantial similarities" of those two offenses, that......
  • State Carolina v. Brown, No. COA09–1693.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 3 Mayo 2011
    ...link), Rule 404 automatically excludes the evidence.”); United States v. Desmarais, 938 F.2d 347, 350 (1st Cir.1991); Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979, 996 (Colo.2002); State v. Hopson, 735 So.2d 81, 87 (La.Ct.App. 5th Cir.1999); People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 376, 582 N.W.2d 785, 794 (1998); ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT