State v. Cottrell, s. 63420
| Decision Date | 21 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | 67406,Nos. 63420,s. 63420 |
| Citation | 910 S.W.2d 814 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. William H. COTTRELL, Appellant. William H. COTTRELL, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
William Cottrell appeals convictions for second degree murder and armed criminal action and a denial for post conviction relief under Rule 29.15 after a hearing. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to life imprisonment for second degree murder and a consecutive ten year sentence for armed criminal action. We affirm.
The state proved the following: on April 8, 1991, Tammy Fister, Steve Patterson, Charles Vance and Skip Shipley drove to St. Louis to work. After work all four went to several bars. At one of the bars, Vance saw Cottrell, who had been incarcerated with him at the Farmington Correctional Center. Vance introduced Cottrell to the rest of the group and invited him to stay at Fister's apartment in Arnold, Missouri, with the understanding they would drive him back to St. Louis the following morning. Cottrell agreed and left with Shipley, Vance, Fister and Patterson.
When they arrived at Fister's apartment, they drank more beer and talked. Shipley decided to return home and he offered Cottrell a ride back to St. Louis. Cottrell declined. He chose to ride back in the morning.
Fister, Vance, Patterson and Cottrell went to another bar. They drank more beer and played pool. Patterson did not feel well, so he returned to Fister's apartment. Vance, Fister and Cottrell went to a party and drank still more beer.
The three returned to find Patterson sleeping on the couch without clothing. Fister covered him. The three went into the kitchen and ate sandwiches and drank more beer. Fister left the dishes on the counter, including a butcher knife. Fister told Cottrell he could sleep on the floor or in the children's bedroom. Fister and Vance went upstairs to their bedroom to sleep.
In the early morning hours, Cottrell went upstairs, three times, waking Vance and Fister. He demanded they drive him back to St. Louis. Vance told him to wait until the morning because he was too intoxicated to drive. Cottrell made threatening statements and went back downstairs.
Fister and Vance awoke when they heard Patterson yelling "... get up, get up, he got me, he stabbed me...." Patterson stumbled into the upstairs bedroom, running into the walls. He was "squirting" blood everywhere. Moments later, Patterson fell face down into a closet and died immediately thereafter.
Fister and Vance then saw Cottrell in the doorway. Fister said Cottrell pulled out the butcher knife still dripping with blood and demanded the car keys. He attempted to swing the knife at Vance and Fister saying, "I am killing every one of you ... just like I just killed that faggot." Vance then threw the keys at Cottrell. Cottrell immediately drove off.
Cottrell stabbed Patterson seven times. The fatal wounds were in the chest area and leg. The state presented several graphic photographs taken during the autopsy and at the crime scene.
Cottrell introduced evidence of self-defense. He claimed Patterson went into the kitchen, picked up the knife, and began attacking him after Cottrell called him a "fag" and ordered him to put on some clothes. A jury rejected the defense and found him guilty of both counts.
Cottrell argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting "cumulative, repetitious, gruesome, and unduly inflammatory" photographs of the deceased and a videotape of the crime scene. The disputed photographs are identified as state's exhibits 19, 20, 21, 57, 59, 62, and 64.
The trial court is vested with broad discretion in admitting photographs. State v. Feltrop, 803 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Mo. banc 1991). Photographs are relevant if they depict the nature and location of wounds, the identity of the victim, the cause of death, and refute the defendant's theory the victim was the aggressor and stabbed by defendant in self-defense. See State v. Guinan, 665 S.W.2d 325, 331 (Mo. banc 1984). The photographs are admissible if they tend to aid the jury in better understanding the testimony and the elements in the state's case. State v. Simpson, 908 S.W.2d 839, 842 (Mo.App.S.D.1995).
State's exhibits numbers 19 and 20 depict, at different angles, Patterson's body face down in the closet with excessive blood smears on the closet door. State's exhibit 21 is a close-up picture of the body in the closet. All three of these exhibits describe the crime scene and the location of the body.
State's exhibits numbers 57, 59, 62, and 64 represent blown-up autopsy photographs. Each photograph depicts a different stab wound on Patterson's body. Further, the medical examiner used his finger to show the "considerable depth" of the wounds and the angle the knife penetrated Patterson's body. By using state's exhibit number 57 which depicts the chest wounds, the medical examiner testified the wound was deep enough to cut a large artery.
State's exhibit number 62 shows Patterson's massive back wound. The medical examiner testified the knife hit the rib cage, probably causing Cottrell's hand to slip over the blade of the knife and cutting his hand. This testimony is significant because it refutes Cottrell's self-defense theory; Cottrell claims he cut his hand trying to get the knife from Patterson while they were wrestling.
The medical examiner also testified, using state's exhibit number 64, the stab wound in Patterson's leg severed a "major blood vessel," causing "gushing type" hemorrhaging. The examiner opined the cause of death was due to the wound in the left chest and the wound in the lower right leg.
The photographs assisted the medical examiner's testimony, they dispute Cottrell's self-defense theory, they describe the location and nature of the wounds and the cause of death. Photographs may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gorman, s. 20070
...so easily escape the brutality of their own actions; gruesome crimes produce gruesome, yet probative, photographs.' " State v. Cottrell, 910 S.W.2d 814, 816 (Mo.App.1995) (citation State's exhibit 15 was used in conjunction with the testimony of Dr. William Steinmetz, the physician that per......
-
State v. Suter, s. WD
...29.15 motion is limited to whether the motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); State v. Cottrell, 910 S.W.2d 814, 816 (Mo.App.1995). Findings and conclusions are deemed clearly erroneous only if, after a full review of the record, we are left with the d......
-
State v. Myers, s. 69471
...to the law existing at the time of the trial; failure to predict a change in the law is not ineffective assistance. State v. Cottrell, 910 S.W.2d 814, 817 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). Evidence of both uncharged incidents was admitted pursuant to Section 566.025, which was in effect at the time of De......
-
Lamastus v. State, 74453
...to the law existing at the time of the trial; failure to predict a change in the law is not ineffective assistance. State v. Cottrell, 910 S.W.2d 814, 817 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). The court admitted A.M.'s testimony pursuant to Section 566.025, which was in effect at the time of Defendant's tria......