Morrissette v. State

• Citation: 524 P.3d 803
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals No. A-13322
• Decision Date: 10 February 2023
• Parties: Trayvon Leon Artis MORRISSETTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Alaska

524 P.3d 803

Trayvon Leon Artis MORRISSETTE, Appellant,

v.STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

Court of Appeals No. A-13322

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

February 10, 2023

Megan R. Webb, Assistant Public Defender, and Samantha Cherot, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.

Elizabeth T. Burke, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Terrell, Judges.

OPINION

Judge ALLARD, writing for the Court.

Trayvon Leon Artis Morrissette was convicted, following a jury trial, of first-degree murder for shooting Jorge Rea-Villa nine times, killing him.¹ Morrissette was also convicted of first-degree burglary based on his unlawful entry into a secured parking garage and an apartment building during the police manhunt that followed the killing.² For these crimes, Morrissette received a composite sentence of 99 years to serve. Morrissette now appeals, raising three claims of error.

First, Morrissette argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of first-degree murder because, he claims, the evidence showed that he was in a methamphetamine-induced psychosis

at the time of the shooting. Second, Morrissette argues that the superior court committed plain error when it failed to provide the jury with a factual unanimity instruction with regard to the burglary charge. Lastly, Morrissette argues that his sentence is excessive.

For the reasons explained here, we reject these claims of error and affirm the superior court's judgment.

Factual background and prior proceedings

On July 4, 2016, Morrissette was at a holiday barbeque at a friend's trailer. Also present was Jorge Rea-Villa. At one point, some of the people at the barbeque decided to visit a strip club. In preparation for this outing, Rea-Villa went to the bathroom to fix his hair.

Shortly thereafter, there were multiple gunshots. Morrissette was then seen coming out of the bathroom where Rea-Villa had been. Morrissette had shot Rea-Villa nine times with a nine-millimeter handgun. One of the gunshots struck Rea-Villa in the head and was immediately fatal. When asked by one of the barbecue attendees why he shot Rea-Villa, Morrissette said nothing and "was just blank." Witnesses who were at the barbecue testified that they had not seen Morrissette and Rea-Villa fighting that day, and did not know of any reason why the two men would have been mad at each other.

After leaving the barbecue, Morrissette tried to evade the police by driving into a secured underground parking garage. Once in the parking garage, Morrissette was seen trying to break into cars. Morrissette was then seen entering the apartment building, trying to enter into different apartments. In at least one instance, Morrissette actually entered someone's apartment unit. While the police continued to search for him, Morrissette left the apartment building and broke into the maintenance shed of another nearby apartment complex, where he changed clothing. Morrissette then jumped a ten-foot fence, entered a wooded area, and subsequently hid in a stairwell leading to the basement-level entrance to a third apartment building. The police K-9 unit ultimately tracked Morrissette to this stairwell, and the police arrested him.

At the police station, Detective Leonard Torres interviewed Morrissette. According to Torres, Morrissette was "functioning fine" at that time — Morrissette had normal motor function, he seemed to know where he was, and he was able to follow the instructions officers gave him.

Morrissette was charged with first-degree and second-degree murder for killing Rea-Villa; he was also charged with first-degree burglary for his entry into the secured parking garage, attempting to break into various cars, and his entry into an apartment inside the building.

At trial, Morrissette testified in his own defense. Morrissette testified that he used to work at Moore Heating and was the primary caretaker for his children. But his addiction to methamphetamine caused him to lose his job and caused his friends — including those who also used methamphetamine — to be worried for him. Morrissette testified that he had become increasingly paranoid because of his methamphetamine use, and he gave examples of irrational actions he had taken in the recent past because of this paranoia. These actions included: repeatedly changing the locks at his home, smashing a hole in the wall searching for non-existing surveillance equipment, repeatedly calling an exterminator to rid his house of an imagined mite infestation, going to the hospital for an imagined carbon monoxide poisoning, and almost getting into fights with his friends after he accused them of things they were not doing.

Morrissette testified that on the day of the shooting, he smoked methamphetamine in the morning and had not slept for a number of days. Morrissette remembered walking to the bathroom at the barbeque and realizing that Rea-Villa was in there. He remembered pulling out his gun and shooting Rea-Villa multiple times but he did not know why. When asked what was going through his mind as he pulled the gun out, Morrissette stated: "Nothing." He testified that he did not intend to pull out the gun and shoot anybody, and that he did not want to hurt anybody. Morrissette also testified that, after the shooting, he followed a car into a parking garage but he did not know why he was trying to get into other cars or why he did the other things he did after the shooting.

In addition to his own testimony, Morrissette presented an expert witness who testified that chronic methamphetamine use can lead to psychosis

and paranoia and that he believed this was what Morrissette was experiencing when Morrissette shot Rea-Villa. The expert witness testified that Morrissette's shooting of Rea-Villa was likely impulsive and a "reflexive response to some type of social misinterpretation."

Following deliberations, the jury found Morrissette guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and first-degree burglary. At sentencing, the superior court merged the two murder verdicts into a single conviction for first-degree murder and sentenced Morrissette to 95 years to serve on the murder conviction. The court also sentenced Morrissette to 4 years to serve on the burglary conviction, for a composite sentence of 99 years to serve.

This appeal followed.

Morrissette's argument that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove first-degree murder

To prove Morrissette guilty of first-degree murder, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Morrissette acted with the intent to kill Rea-Villa when he shot him nine times, killing him.³ At trial, Morrissette argued that he did not intend to kill Rea-Villa, and that he was incapable of forming that intent because he was in a methamphetamine-induced psychosis

at the time of the killing. There was evidence to support this defense. Morrissette testified to his serious methamphetamine addiction and his increasing paranoia that people were out to get him, which was part of the reason he started carrying a loaded handgun. His friends provided similar testimony. The defense also presented the testimony of an expert witness, who opined that Morrissette did not intend to kill Rea-Villa, but rather acted out of a "reflexive response to some type of social misinterpretation that happened very abruptly" upon seeing Rea-Villa in the bathroom that Morrissette was entering.

But there was also evidence that supported the State's theory that Morrissette was not actively psychotic or otherwise incapable of forming the intent to kill. The State argued that Morrissette's actions in evading the police — which included following a car into a secured parking area, attempting to steal a vehicle, escaping from an apartment building surrounded by the police, and changing his clothing — demonstrated a level of cognitive functioning inconsistent with his defense. A police officer who interacted with Morrissette also testified that, after his arrest, Morrissette was "functioning fine" and was able to follow all of the officers’ directions.

When we review the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we are required to view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict.⁴ We do not weigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, as those are matters for the jury to decide.⁵ Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, we conclude that a fair-minded juror could have rejected Morrissette's defense and found proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Morrissette intended to kill Rea-Villa when he shot him nine times.

Morrissette's argument that the superior court committed plain error by failing to provide the jury with a factual unanimity instruction

Morrissette's second claim on appeal is a plain error challenge to his first-degree burglary conviction. The State argued that Morrissette was guilty of first-degree burglary based on his unlawful entry into an apartment building's secured underground parking garage during his flight from the police, and on Morrissette's unlawful entry into an apartment in that same building. At trial, there was a videotape of Morrissette unlawfully entering the secured garage, and Morrissette did not dispute this unlawful entry at trial. However, Morrissette testified that he did not remember separately entering an apartment.

On appeal, Morrissette argues that the superior court committed plain error when it failed to give the jury a factual unanimity instruction differentiating between the alleged act of unlawfully entering the building's secured garage and the alleged act of unlawfully entering an apartment in the building. The State argues that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given that the evidence of Morrissette's unlawful entry into the secured underground parking garage was...