State v. DeRoy
| Decision Date | 27 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 108643,ED 108643 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Paul L. DEROY, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
FOR APPELLANT: Edward S. Thompson, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory L. Barnes, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Paul DeRoy ("Defendant") appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which was entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree murder, armed criminal action, stealing, and first-degree tampering. Defendant brings four points on appeal. First, Defendant contends the trial court erred by entering a judgment of conviction against him for first-degree murder and armed criminal action because the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he caused Ricardo Comparini's ("Victim") death after deliberation. Second, Defendant argues the trial court erred by entering a judgment of conviction against him for both stealing and first-degree tampering because doing so violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. Third, Defendant contends the trial court erred by entering a judgment of conviction against him for stealing because a variance existed between the first-degree robbery offense charged in the indictment and the lesser-included stealing offense submitted to the jury. Finally, Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him because the State destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence on his cell phone in bad faith. We affirm.
On appeal from a jury-tried case, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. State v. Kilgore , 505 S.W.3d 362, 369 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). The evidence adduced at trial established Defendant and Victim resided together at Victim's home. On February 22, 2016, Victim was found beaten to death in his home. Victim's autopsy revealed he died of "cranial cerebral blunt trauma," and his death was ruled a homicide. Victim's face was swollen and bruised. Victim's skull was fractured in multiple places. Victim's scalp was "profusely covered with blood," which indicated he sustained "multiple injuries to the head" and suffered "a lot of trauma." Victim had patterned injuries on his back, neck, and scalp, which were likely caused by an object. Victim had defensive injuries; the back of Victim's left hand and Victim's elbows were swollen and bruised. The medical examiner performing Victim's autopsy noted, "There was so many injuries, I couldn't count them."
On February 21, 2016, Defendant exchanged text messages with his then-girlfriend, Becky Rodgers. Early in the day, Defendant and Rodgers texted about ordinary things, but Defendant stopped responding to Rodgers’ texts in the early afternoon. Defendant sent Rodgers "kind of strange" texts in the evening. One text was "jumbled." Another said, "disappointment ever cause in your life for any." That evening, Defendant called his friend Brian Schwartz and asked if he could spend the night. When Defendant arrived at Schwartz's home, his demeanor "was a little bit off" and he was driving Victim's vehicle. The morning of February 22, 2016, Defendant texted Rodgers saying, He also messaged her saying, "You'll soon want to forget my name, but I love you dearly."
Around 3:00 p.m. on February 22, 2016, the police were dispatched to Victim's residence where they found Victim deceased and lying on the floor. The police believed Victim died February 21, 2016. The police observed Victim's head had been bashed into a door and a heat vent. Victim was covered in blood, and there was blood throughout the house. The police found a typewritten note believed to be authored by Victim telling Defendant they should "part ways." Victim's vehicle was missing from the house. While at the scene, the police noticed an individual "very closely" resembling Defendant driving Victim's missing vehicle outside Victim's home. The State filed a complaint alleging Defendant committed first-degree tampering by knowingly and unlawfully operating Victim's vehicle without Victim's consent and put a warrant out for Defendant's arrest.1
Rodgers saw Defendant the night of February 22, 2016, at Schwartz's home. She noticed Victim's vehicle was parked out front. She thought it was "odd" Defendant drove Victim's vehicle to Schwartz's home because, although it was not unusual for Defendant to drive Victim's vehicle, she knew Defendant and Victim had been fighting. Defendant and Victim's relationship was "rocky"; sometimes they were good friends and sometimes they would fight. Six days before Victim's death, Victim sent Rodgers a text saying Defendant dragged him into a bedroom at his home, he was "scare[d] ... to death" of Defendant, and he hoped Defendant would move out soon. Two days before Victim's death, Victim sent Rodgers a text saying he felt he could confront Defendant face-to-face because "as scary as that can be ... I trust [Defendant] won't hurt me." The morning of February 23, 2016, Rodgers learned Victim was deceased. She called Defendant and asked him what happened. Defendant told Rodgers he "just snapped."
The police arrested Defendant on February 24, 2016. After Defendant's arrest, the police seized his clothes and obtained his consent to collect buccal swabs and fingernail clippings. The police found Victim's DNA in blood stains on Defendant's shirt and pants. The police also found Victim's DNA in Defendant's fingernail clippings. The police seized Defendant's cell phone. Defendant did not give consent for the police to search his cell phone. Defendant's cell phone was damaged while the police attempted to extract information from it.
Several days later, Victim's vehicle was found parked in front of an apartment building one mile from Schwartz's home. Inside the vehicle, the police found Victim's wallet, Victim's watch, a pair of socks, a cigarette, and a plastic bag which all contained blood stains. The blood on Victim's wallet, Victim's watches, the socks, the cigarette, and the plastic bag contained Victim's DNA. Defendant's DNA was found on Victim's wallet and watches.
Both Victim's and Defendant's DNA was found in blood stains in the bathroom sink and faucet at Victim's home. Both Victim's and Defendant's DNA was also found on several cigarette butts, a bottle, a glass, and a mug at Victim's home. Defendant's clothes and shoes and a glove containing Defendant's DNA were found damp in the washing machine at Victim's home.
Defendant was charged with: (1) first-degree murder for knowingly causing Victim's death after deliberation by striking Victim; (2) armed criminal action for committing first-degree murder of Victim while using a dangerous weapon; (3) first-degree robbery for forcibly stealing Victim's wallet and watches; and (4) armed criminal action for committing first-degree robbery of Victim's wallet and watches while using a dangerous weapon.
Before trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him because the police damaged his cell phone while attempting to extract information from it after his arrest. Defendant argued the location data on his cell phone was potentially exculpatory and could have shown he was not at Victim's home when Victim was killed. Defendant argued the State acted in bad faith by allowing his phone to be destroyed because the police failed to document his cell phone was seized after his arrest in their report. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss.
A jury trial was held November 4-8, 2019. At the close of all evidence, the jury was instructed on the crimes charged. Even though Defendant was charged with committing first-degree robbery by forcibly stealing Victim's wallet and watches, the jury was instructed to consider whether Defendant forcibly stole Victim's vehicle. At Defendant's request, the jury was also instructed on the lesser-included offense of stealing Victim's vehicle. Defendant did not object to the instructions submitted to the jury.
The jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree murder, armed criminal action, stealing, and first-degree tampering. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole for first-degree murder, life for armed criminal action, one year for stealing, and seven years for first-degree tampering.
This appeal follows.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by entering a judgment of conviction against him for first-degree murder and armed criminal action because the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he caused Victim's death after deliberation.
"[T]his Court's review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to whether the State has introduced sufficient evidence for any reasonable juror to have been convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Nash , 339 S.W.3d 500, 508-09 (Mo. banc 2011). "This is not an assessment of whether the Court believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but rather a question of whether, in light of the evidence most favorable to the State, any rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (internal quotations omitted).
A person commits first-degree murder when he or she "knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter." § 565.020.1.2 Deliberation is "cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief." § 565.002(3). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oliver
...error[ ] affecting substantial rights." Rule 30.20.2 Plain error is error that is "evident, obvious, and clear." State v. DeRoy , 623 S.W.3d 778, 789 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (quoting State v. Darden , 263 S.W.3d 760, 762-63 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ). "Substantial rights are involved if, facially,......
-
State v. Vrba
...Id. at 547-48, 124 S.Ct. 1200 (citing Arizona v. Youngblood , 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988) ). State v. DeRoy , 623 S.W.3d 778, 790 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). The trial court heard the testimony relevant to the question of bad faith, and, based upon its denial of Defendant's......
-
State v. Haneline
... ... Celis-Garcia , 344 S.W.3d 150, 154 (Mo. banc 2011) ... (quoting State v. Dorsey , 318 S.W.3d 648, 652 (Mo ... banc 2010)). Instructional error rarely reaches this level ... State v. Gannan , 658 S.W.3d 103, 111-12 (Mo. App ... W.D. 2022); State v. DeRoy , 623 S.W.3d 778, 789 (Mo ... App. E.D. 2021) ... Additional ... Facts Relevant to Points Two, Three, and Five ... During ... the instruction conference at trial, Mr. Haneline's ... counsel stated he had no objection to ... ...
-
State v. Muldrew
...determine from the face of the record that the trial court had no power to enter the conviction." Id.; see, e.g., State v. DeRoy, 623 S.W.3d 778, 787 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) ; State v. Wright, 608 S.W.3d 790, 793-94 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). Here, we find Muldrew adequately preserved the point for......