Meister v. State, 122418 IDCCA, 44322
| Opinion Judge | GUTIERREZ, JUDGE. |
| Party Name | DAVID JOSEPH MEISTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. |
| Attorney | Catherine M. Mabbutt, Moscow, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. |
| Judge Panel | Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge Pro Tem MELANSON CONCUR. |
| Case Date | December 24, 2018 |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Latah County. Hon. Carl B. Kerrick, District Judge.
Order summarily dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
Catherine M. Mabbutt, Moscow, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
GUTIERREZ, JUDGE.
David Joseph Meister appeals from the district court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Specifically, Meister challenges the district court's dismissal of his claims that appellate counsel was ineffective, trial counsel was ineffective, the district court erred in limiting the testimony of his expert witness, his due process rights were violated because the jury room was insufficiently insulated, cumulative error denied him a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel, and the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for discovery. For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In northern Idaho in 2001, a woman, T.H., was shot and killed in her home, which she shared with her boyfriend, J.L. Based on footprints in the snow, it was determined that the shooter first approached the front entrance to the woman's home and then proceeded to the back entrance. When the woman opened the back door, she was shot once in the chest and once in the face. The shooter then retreated behind the home and through a snow-covered field, which exited onto a nearby road. A neighbor heard the shots and went to the woman's home. He called 911 and unsuccessfully made resuscitation efforts. The woman was pronounced dead at the scene.
Almost a year later, police officers interrogated Meister in connection with the woman's death. Meister confessed that he was paid $1, 000 by the victim's boyfriend to kill the victim. Meister was charged with first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Prior to trial, Meister filed a motion to suppress his confession, which the district court denied. A jury convicted Meister on both charges, and Meister appealed. On appeal, this Court determined that the district court did not err in admitting Meister's confession; however, the Court concluded the district court erred by not admitting evidence of an alternate perpetrator. State v. Meister, Docket No. 30152 (Ct. App. Oct. 2007) (unpublished). The State petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court for review regarding the alternate perpetrator issue, which the Court granted. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the district court applied the wrong standard for admissibility of alternate perpetrator evidence, vacated Meister's judgment of conviction, and remanded the case for a new trial. State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 220 P.3d 1055 (2009).
Preceding the second trial, the State filed a motion regarding the law of the case doctrine, requesting that the district court limit relitigation of any issue addressed on appeal by either this Court or the Idaho Supreme Court. The district court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part, ruling only issues addressed by the Supreme Court were precluded from relitigation. In addition, the district court applied the law of the case doctrine to all unappealed rulings of the district court, unless there was a showing that the decision was clearly erroneous and a manifest injustice would result.
Meister then filed another motion to suppress his confession, arguing it was coerced. After a hearing in which Meister's expert witness, Dr. O., provided testimony regarding the coercive nature of certain interrogation techniques, the district court ruled Meister's confession was not coerced and denied Meister's motion to suppress. The State filed a motion in limine to preclude Dr. O.'s testimony, arguing that based on the district court's ruling, any testimony would be irrelevant. The district court ruled that Dr. O. would be permitted to offer testimony regarding false confessions in general; however, the district court's previous ruling on the voluntariness of Meister's confession would stand. The court also ruled that Dr. O. could not testify regarding the voluntariness of Meister's confession. Finally, the district court ruled Dr. O.'s testimony would be limited because he would not be permitted to offer an opinion regarding the truth or falsity of Meister's confession.
At Meister's second trial, Dr. O. testified regarding false confessions in general, including theories of how certain interrogation tactics can result in an innocent person's confession to a crime. The State questioned Dr. O. about the percentage of cases he reviewed which resulted in a false confession. Meister then requested that Dr. O. testify regarding the application of his theories regarding false confessions to circumstances surrounding Meister's confession, arguing that the State's questioning opened the door for such. The district court denied the request.
During closing argument, trial counsel stated the police initially presented Meister with the evidence against him. The officer sat "knee-to-knee" with Meister, attacking him for forty minutes. Counsel argued that, after hours of interrogation, officers presented Meister with the idea that Meister had been hired by a co-worker to kill his girlfriend, offered Meister leniency and said that the co-worker, not Meister, was the bad person and that they wanted to help Meister. Counsel stated, "That's the point from Dr. O. And that's the point you get to by doing all of the things that [the officers] did in their interrogation of him to result in a false confession. They made it hopeless, and they provided him an out." Counsel then discussed the parts of Meister's confession that contradicted the evidence; i.e., that Meister claimed to see a police vehicle on a road while fleeing when, in fact, no police vehicle was on that road. Meister also confessed to throwing away the bullets as he fled, yet several witnesses testified that Meister offered to give them bullets in the following days. Meister also claimed he discarded his clothes in the field, yet no clothes were ever found. Counsel finally stated, "The circumstances offered by Dr. O. provide for, create the circumstances of a false confession."
In addition, the State introduced evidence of two bullets found at the scene--one found in the wall of the victim's home and the other removed from the victim's body--as well as two cartridge cases. Two firearms experts testified that the bullets were fired from a High Point nine millimeter semiautomatic handgun, the bullets were remanufactured, and the bullets were consistent with those remanufactured by Ultramax. The State also presented evidence that Meister had purchased a High Point nine millimeter semiautomatic handgun and Ultramax remanufactured ammunition days prior to the victim's death. Meister admitted in his testimony that he purchased the gun, but testified that he sold the gun and ammunition to a stranger at a party the day before the victim's death. The day after the victim's death, the gun manual and tools were found under Meister's refrigerator. The person who sold the gun to Meister testified that Meister said he was "going to shoot somebody in the face." The State presented testimony that Meister offered at least two individuals a box of nine millimeter ammunition for free. One witness testified Meister told the witness that Meister wanted to get rid of the ammunition because he was afraid it was used in a crime, and the witness and Meister then threw the ammunition into a dumpster. Photographs of footprints found at the scene of the crime were introduced showing prints in the snow leading from the backdoor of the home, through a field, over some fences, and to a road. A shoeprint analysis was conducted, showing the footprints were likely created by a size 8-1/2 to 9-1/2, and the tread design was consistent with that of an Osiris ODS shoe. Multiple witnesses testified that Meister owned Osiris ODS shoes, and a shoe salesman testified that he measured Meister's foot and that his shoe size was 8-1/2 to 9. Two people testified that they saw a person walking along the highway near the victim's home immediately before the victim's death. The person was described as male, wearing a plaid flannel shirt, dark baggy pants, and possibly a scarf and that he walked with an unusual gait. The witnesses testified the person fit the physical size of Meister. In his confession, Meister stated that prior to going to the victim's home, he drank a couple of beers, put on dark corduroy pants, a red flannel shirt, black scarf, and black beanie. Witnesses also testified that on various occasions Meister stated whoever committed the murder must have been pretty smart to not have been caught. Additionally, Meister asked one witness, "What would you say if I told you I did it?" then stated, "Well, I did it," followed by "No, no I'm just kidding." Meister also told another, while watching a detective show, that a co-worker paid him $1, 000 to kill the co-worker's girlfriend, that Meister walked to her house, knocked on the door, and shot her in the face and chest, then ran to a field where he had stashed some clothes and shoes, changed clothes, and threw the gun and shoes in a garbage can.
After a four-week trial in which numerous motions were filed, the jury found Meister guilty of both first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Meister filed a motion for acquittal or in the alternative a new trial, which was denied. The district court imposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial