State v. Donelson

• Decision Date: 05 July 2011
• Docket Number: No. ED 95132.,ED 95132.
• Citation: 343 S.W.3d 729
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent,v.Rodney DONELSON, Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

343 S.W.3d 729

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Rodney DONELSON, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 95132.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

July 5, 2011.

Brocca Leah Smith, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.Chris Koster, Attorney General, Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J. and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Donelson (Defendant) appeals from the trial court's judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, in violation of Section 565.020 ¹, and two counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without parole on the first count of murder and to fifty years' imprisonment on the first count of armed criminal action, the sentences for those counts to be served concurrently with each other. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without parole on the second count of murder and to fifty years' imprisonment on the second count of armed criminal action, the sentences for those counts to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the first count of murder and the first count of armed criminal action.

We reverse the trial court's judgment with regard to the two counts of armed criminal action on the ground that those counts were barred by the statute of limitations, Section 556.036 RSMo Cum.Supp.2009, and vacate the corresponding sentences of fifty years of imprisonment on each count. We affirm the trial court's judgment with regard to the two counts of first-degree murder.

Factual and Procedural Background

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence at trial established the following facts:

In July 2000, Cassandra Scott (Scott) was found dead in her apartment. She was lying face down on the floor in a pool of blood and with a kitchen knife protruding from the back of her neck. A container of antifreeze, a telephone cord, and a pair of men's underwear were found nearby. A purse strap was wrapped around Scott's neck and arm. The murderer had apparently broken a window on the front door to gain entry into Scott's apartment. Investigators discovered that the blood near Scott's body had been diluted by some other liquid and that the liquid was on Scott's buttocks. Investigators found an empty bottle of isopropyl alcohol in the apartment, and the knife found in Scott's neck matched some knives in the kitchen sink. An autopsy revealed that Scott died from a combination of strangulation by the purse strap and five cuts to the right side of her neck, which pierced the jugular vein. Laboratory testing on the men's underwear found near Scott's body revealed that two stains on the underwear were blood and seminal fluid. DNA tests matched the blood to Scott and the seminal fluid to Defendant.

Defendant worked at the daycare where Scott worked, and Defendant's brother lived in the apartment below Scott's apartment. Although police investigators questioned Defendant about Scott's death approximately two months after her body was found, Defendant stated that he did not know anything about the murder. However, Defendant told investigators that he had been in Scott's apartment to repair a VCR three days prior to her murder. Defendant told investigators that he might have left a bag of clothes in Scott's apartment, including a pair of white boxer shorts. Defendant claimed that he left the clothes there because he liked to flirt with women at the daycare center and he wanted to look clean. Defendant then changed his story and said that he had been in Scott's apartment on the night of her murder and that they were preparing to engage in sex when they heard a car door slam. Scott suspected her boyfriend was there, so Defendant gathered his clothes, ran down the rear stairs into his brother's apartment, and left the building. Defendant's brother, however, denied that Defendant was in his apartment on the night of the murder. When investigators confronted Defendant with his brother's denial about Defendant's whereabouts, Defendant subsequently changed his story again and claimed he had been at Scott's apartment to repair a VCR.

In September 2005, Defendant was living in an apartment above the apartment of Barbara Hampton (Hampton). On September 14, 2005, at approximately 10:40 p.m., Hampton was having a telephone conversation with her daughter. Hampton interrupted the conversation to answer a knock at the door, then told her daughter that Defendant was there and wanted to use Hampton's telephone to make a call. Hampton ended the call with her daughter.

The following day, Hampton was found dead in her apartment. She was lying on the bedroom floor with a gag tied around her mouth. Hampton's dress and slip were pushed up, and her underwear had been removed and left near her feet. Hampton had sustained an injury to her vaginal area. Several bottles were located near Hampton's body: dish washing liquid, laundry detergent, and an empty bottle of isopropyl alcohol. Near Hampton's body, police investigators found the cap from the bottle of isopropyl alcohol, dried liquids and powders, a kitchen knife, and a telephone cord. An autopsy revealed that Hampton died from suffocation caused by the gag pushing her tongue back so that it blocked her airway. The autopsy also showed that Hampton had sustained a fresh injury to her vaginal area that could have been caused by a sharp object or by something stretching the tissue. Blood was found on Hampton's slip, on a pillowcase, and on the cap from the bottle of isopropyl alcohol. DNA tests revealed that Defendant was the source of the majority of DNA found in the blood on the bottle cap. Defendant's DNA also was found in some of the blood stains on the pillowcase. Trace amounts of DNA consistent with Defendant's DNA was found on telephone cord and on Hampton's slip.

Police investigators questioned Defendant about Hampton's death approximately one month after her body was found. Defendant told investigators that he had spoken with Hampton the night before her body was found but that he had left with a friend named Robert Ellis (Ellis) and did not return home until the next morning. Ellis, however, denied that Defendant had ever spent the night with him and specifically denied that Defendant had spent the night with him in September 2005.

Consequently, after further investigation, police questioned Defendant a second time. This time, Defendant admitted that he had lied in his first statement because he had spent the night with Brenda Jacobs (Jacobs) and he did not want his girlfriend, Melinda Freeman (Freeman), to know he had been cheating on her. Defendant became angry and agitated during the second interview with police. Defendant then admitted he had been in Hampton's apartment a few years earlier to help her husband carry in a mattress. Hampton's husband had died approximately two years before Hampton's murder. After Defendant was arrested and informed of his Miranda² rights, Defendant repeated the story he had given to investigators during the second interview.

Police investigators then questioned Freeman, with whom Defendant had lived in the apartment above Hampton's apartment. Freeman provided investigators with Jacobs' telephone number. She stated that Defendant had instructed her to tell police that he had been cheating on her with Jacobs. Investigators subsequently interviewed Jacobs, who stated that she and Defendant had not spent any night together in September 2005.

After his arrest, Defendant also discussed Scott's murder with police investigators. Defendant claimed that he had gone to Scott's apartment the day before her murder to repair the toilet. Defendant said that he must have left a bag of clothes in Scott's apartment; however, on the night of Scott's murder, he had stayed with his girlfriend, Latoya Vanderford.

At trial, Defendant did not testify or present any evidence. The jury subsequently found him guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed sentence. This appeal follows.

Point I

In his first point on appeal, Defendant claims the trial court erred in imposing judgment and sentence for the two counts of armed criminal action because those counts were barred by the three-year statute of limitations under Section 556.036 RSMo Cum.Supp.2009.

Whether or not a statute of limitations applies is a question of law, and our review is de novo. State v. Maples, 306 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Mo.App. W.D.2010); State v. Rains, 49 S.W.3d 828, 831 (Mo.App. E.D.2001).

“Criminal prosecution of felonies can be subject to no time limit, a three-year limit, or a ten-year limit.” State v. Hyman, 37 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). The general statute of limitations for criminal offenses, Section 556.036 RSMo Cum.Supp.2009, provides, in pertinent part:

A prosecution for murder, forcible rape, attempted forcible rape, forcible sodomy, attempted forcible sodomy, or any class A felony may be commenced at any time.

Except as otherwise provided, prosecutions for other offenses must be commenced within the following periods of limitation:

(1) For any felony, three years, except as provided in subdivision (4) of this subsection;

...

(4) For any violation of section 569.040, RSMo, when classified as a B felony, or any violation of section 569.050 or 569.055, RSMo, five years.

Prosecution of the felony of armed criminal action, however, is limited to three years because armed criminal action is an unclassified code felony and cannot be designated a class A felony. Hyman, 37 S.W.3d at 388–90.

Any person who commits any felony under the laws of this state by, with, or through the use, assistance, or aid of a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon is also guilty of the crime of armed criminal action, which shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not...