State v. Angelo, 124,071
| Docket Number | 124,071 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Citation | 518 P.3d 27 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Patrick ANGELO Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Reid T. Nelson, of Capital and Conflicts Appeals Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Kayla L. Roehler, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
A jury convicted Patrick Angelo Jr. of two counts of first-degree murder for the shooting deaths of Kevin Brown and Jamie Wilson at a house in Kansas City. These convictions were mainly supported by incriminating testimony from witnesses who were at or near the house around the time of the shooting. In hopes of challenging this testimony, Angelo later petitioned for postconviction DNA testing under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-2512. This statute requires a district court to order testing of biological material that is related to the case and in the State's possession when results may yield exculpatory, noncumulative evidence.
In support of his petition, Angelo argued DNA testing of various biological material could show the lack of his DNA and the presence of another suspect's DNA. He claimed these results would constitute exculpatory evidence probative of the identity of the shooter. Angelo also argued these results would impeach the testimony of the State's lone eyewitness to the shootings, who identified Angelo as the culprit. But the district court summarily denied Angelo's petition after finding the only evidence in State custody that Angelo sought to have tested—the victims’ clothing—would not produce exculpatory evidence.
Angelo now appeals the district court's denial of his petition. On appeal, the State defends the district court's conclusion that DNA testing of biological material on the victims’ clothing could not produce exculpatory evidence. But the State also argues that summary denial of the petition was appropriate because Angelo failed to meet his burden to show the existence of biological material on the victims’ clothing.
These issues require us to interpret K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-2512 to clarify the procedures and respective burdens of the parties during the pretesting phase of the proceedings. Our statutory interpretation reveals the Legislature contemplated a three-part process leading up to the district court's first decision point—whether to order DNA testing. First, the petitioner must allege in the petition that biological material satisfying the threshold requirements for testing under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-2512(a) exists. Second, once the State has notice of the petition, the statute requires the State to preserve any biological material it previously secured in connection with the case and identify such material in its response. Finally, once the response is filed, the parties may agree that the State has identified and preserved all known biological material and proceed to argue whether testing that identified biological material may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence warranting testing under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-2512(c). But if the parties continue to dispute the existence of such biological material, they can present evidence to the district court for appropriate fact-finding. In that circumstance, the petitioner, as the moving party, has the burden to show biological material satisfying the threshold requirements of subsection (a) exists.
Because the parties did not have the benefit of this statutory interpretation, their pleadings did not disclose the existence of a factual dispute concerning the presence of biological material on the victims’ clothing, and thus the district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing. These circumstances warrant a remand for further proceedings consistent with our statutory interpretation.
Of course, such a remand would be futile if the district court correctly concluded that testing the biological material on the victims’ clothing (material the district court presumed existed) could not yield exculpatory evidence. But under the facts of this case, we conclude such potential DNA test results may be exculpatory, and the district court erred in concluding to the contrary. We thus reverse the district court's ruling that even if biological material exists on the victim's clothing, it would not produce exculpatory evidence. However, this holding alone is not sufficient for Angelo to prevail in his quest for DNA testing. This is because the district court never made any fact finding about the actual existence of biological material on the victim's clothing. As such, we remand the matter for this factual inquiry and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In 2004, victims Brown and Wilson were staying at a house on Haskell Avenue in Kansas City with several other people, including Angelo's son, Patrick Angelo III (Little Pat). On February 18, police officers raided the house, seized drugs and guns, and arrested several people. Two days later, officers returned to the house on the report of a double homicide. They found Brown's body in a hallway outside the bathroom. Brown had suffered two gunshot wounds to the left side of his head, one of which was a contact wound. They also found Wilson's body on the floor of a nearby bedroom. She had suffered a single contact gunshot wound to the back of her head.
During the investigation, police identified Angelo, Little Pat, and Little Pat's friend, Maurice Williams Jr. (Little Reese), as potential suspects. In a police interview, Little Pat first denied being at the house the night of the murders. But Little Pat later admitted he and Angelo were there, and he pointed to Angelo as the shooter. The State charged Angelo with two counts of first-degree murder. Angelo was arrested in Missouri about a week after the murders and extradited to Kansas several months later.
At Angelo's trial, the State presented evidence that the owner of the Haskell house had agreed to rent it to Little Pat and his friends for several months to prevent the house from going into foreclosure. Little Pat, Little Reese, and others used the house to buy and sell drugs, and they also partied there. The State also presented evidence that a ring belonging to Angelo went missing before the murders. Brown was the last person known to have the ring. Angelo's girlfriend had also accused Brown of propositioning her.
The State's case relied most heavily on the testimony of four witnesses: Curtis Brooks, Maurice Williams Sr., Little Pat, and Little Reese.
Brooks, who was staying at the Haskell house with Brown and Wilson, testified he was at the house with the victims when Angelo and Little Pat came over. Both Angelo and Little Pat seemed upset. Little Pat immediately went upstairs while Angelo retrieved something from a vent. At trial, Brooks testified that he did not know what Angelo retrieved from the vent. But at preliminary hearing, Brooks said Angelo had retrieved a revolver. Angelo then asked Brooks where Brown was located. Brooks told Angelo that Brown was in the basement. Angelo instructed Brooks to direct Brown to the bathroom whenever he came upstairs. Brooks complied. Little Pat then came back downstairs, and Brooks told him Angelo and Brown were in the bathroom.
Brooks said he was afraid Little Pat had come to the house to collect money Brooks owed him. So Brooks asked another person at the house for a ride to Brooks’ nephew's house. When Brooks left the Haskell house, Angelo, Brown, and Little Pat were all in the bathroom with the door closed. At his nephew's, Brooks requested a gun for protection. His nephew did not have a gun but offered to cover Brooks’ debt. Brooks then returned to the Haskell house after being gone about 10 minutes. When Brooks opened the door, he saw two bodies lying on the floor. Brooks immediately returned to his nephew's house.
Williams testified he was at Brooks’ nephew's house the night of the murders. Brooks came over saying something was wrong with Brown, and Brown was lying on the floor of the Haskell house. Williams drove to the Haskell house. When he looked in the window, he saw someone lying on the floor. He went inside and saw Brown had been shot in the head. He also saw a woman, who had also been shot, lying in the bedroom. He left the house and drove to a nearby gas station to call the police.
Little Pat testified that Angelo drove him and Little Reese to the Haskell house on the night of the murders. Little Pat and Little Reese both went to the house to retrieve some of their property. But Little Pat was unsure why Angelo wanted to go with them. Angelo parked around the corner from the house, and he and Little Pat got out. Once in the house, Little Pat immediately went upstairs. He looked around for his and Little Reese's property for about 10 minutes. When he went back downstairs, he heard a loud noise, and saw Brown slump onto Angelo in the hallway outside the bathroom. Little Pat fled the house. As he ran to the car, he heard two more loud sounds.
Little Pat said he got back to the car shortly before Angelo. Inside the car, Little Pat heard Angelo mumble something, but he could not understand what Angelo said. Little Reese later told Little Pat that Angelo had said Brown was dead.
Finally, Little Reese testified he was arrested during the drug raid on the Haskell house and was not released from jail until the day of the murders. Angelo drove him and Little Pat over to the house. Little Reese stayed in the car while Angelo and Little Pat went inside. Little Reese asked them to retrieve his coat and his keys from the house. When they returned to the car about 10 to 15 minutes later, Little Reese heard Angelo say Brown was dead. Little Reese later asked Little Pat what had happened. Little Pat said he heard gunshots and saw Brown slump onto Angelo. Little Reese later overheard Little Pat tell...
To continue reading
Request your trial