State v. Doss

Decision Date26 March 2013
Docket NumberNo. WD 73937.,WD 73937.
CitationState v. Doss, 394 S.W.3d 486 (Mo. App. 2013)
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eria DOSS, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Chris Koster, Attorney General, Karen L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

Margaret M. Johnston, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.

Before Division Two: KAREN KING MITCHELL, Presiding Judge, and THOMAS H. NEWTON and LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Judges.

KAREN KING MITCHELL, Presiding Judge.

Eria Doss was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of second-degree (felony) murder, section 565.021.1(2); 1 two counts of first-degree robbery, section 569.020.1; and four counts of armed criminal action, section 571.015, for which Doss was sentenced to an aggregate total sentence of two consecutive life terms. On appeal, Doss argues that the evidence was insufficient to support one count of first-degree robbery and challenges the admission of certain juvenile records at the penalty phase of his trial. We reverse in part and remand in part for resentencing.

Factual Background 2

On April 18, 2009, Neighbor was at his home in Kansas City, Missouri. Sometime before 2:00 p.m., Neighbor let his dog outside but remained on the porch himself and noticed three men approach the apartment next door. He recognized one of the men as Larry Marshall,3 who lived up the street from him, but he was unfamiliar with the other two men. He saw Marshall knock on the front door; Marshall then left and walked back towards his own house, while the other two men went inside the residence. Shortly thereafter, Neighbor heard two gunshots and then saw the other two men run out of the house. It appeared to Neighbor that one of the men was carrying some sort of gaming system because Neighbor saw cords dangling from the man's hands. Neighbor went back inside his home and called the police.

Kansas City police officer, Candace Tucker, responded to Neighbor's call. When she and her partner arrived at the scene, they entered the residence from which the men fled. Inside, they heard music and a gasping, bubbling sound. In one room, they saw two victims lying on the floor with apparent gunshot wounds to the head. Both victims were lying face-down in pools of blood. One victim (later determined to be Andrew Eli) was pronounced dead at the scene, and the other (later determined to be Justin Budreau) was taken away by ambulance, but he did not survive his injuries. One bedroom in the apartment appeared to have been ransacked; the mattress had been pulled off the bed springs, dresser drawers had been pulled out with their contents scattered about, and the closet door was open with its contents also strewn about. Officer Tucker contacted the homicide unit and then went next door to speak with Neighbor.

Inside the home, crime scene investigators located miscellaneous paperwork, in the name of Andrew Eli, for a laptop computer. Investigators were unable to locate any identification, cell phones, or wallets at the scene. They did find two shell casings that were later determined to have been fired from the same gun.

Detective Robert Blehm was assigned to the case. Because there was no identification found at the scene, he was initially unable to identify the victims. Detective Blehm later discovered that the apartment was rented by Andrew Eli and Jarod Mejia and that the victims were Eli and Justin Budreau.

After speaking with Neighbor, Detective Blehm arrested Marshall. And after speaking with Marshall, Detective Blehm put out pick-up orders on Michael Gunn and Doss.4 Doss was picked up later that day, and, after being advised of his Miranda warnings, he agreed to speak with Detective Blehm.

Doss indicated that he had been hanging out with Marshall and Gunn around noon on April 18, 2009. At some point, Marshall suggested that they go to Eli and Mejia's apartment to rob them because he knew they had “smoke,” but no weapons. Gunn took a loaded chrome and black gun with him, but Doss said that the plan was never to kill the victims; they were just supposed to scare them. The plan was originally for Marshall to knock on the door and suggest to the victims that they go smoke, but when no one answered, the three men just walked inside. Once inside, they realized that Eli and Budreau were asleep, so Marshall left, but Gunn and Doss stayed. Gunn then roused the victims by yelling, “Hey, man, wake up.”

After the victims woke, Gunn pointed the weapon at them and yelled for them to lie down on the floor and not look at his face. Doss began searching one of the bedrooms, specifically under the bed, in the dresser drawers, and in the closet. He found [s]ome weed; some dope. Some endo.” Gunn then told him, “hurry up cuz.” At that point, Doss came out of the bedroom, and saw the two victims lying quietly on the floor. Doss then heard two shots, and he was close enough that the shots caused his ears to ring.

Doss and Gunn then ran down the stairs, heading for the door. Gunn had trouble opening the door, so he handed Doss a laptop computer that he had found in the main room to free up his hands. Gunn was then able to open the door, and the two fled the apartment, running to a car, driven by Marshall's cousin, that was waiting for them at the end of the street. Marshall's cousin took the men to the Landing to try to sell the laptop, but they were unsuccessful. They then went to a gas station where Gunn dumped several items in the trash. After purchasing some cigarettes, lighters, and “blunt shells,” the men went to Seven Oaks Park, where Doss's family was having a barbecue, to again try to sell the laptop. They eventually sold it to a woman named Danielle for $150.00. The men stayed at the barbecue, drinking, smoking, and shooting dice. Later that evening, they went cruising around town.

Although he admitted seeing Gunn with a red and white phone that Gunn “found,” Doss denied ever finding or taking any wallets or cell phones during the robbery, and he denied seeing Gunn take any either.

After obtaining Doss's statement, Detective Blehm located Danielle and recovered the laptop. It matched the receipt that had been recovered from Eli and Mejia's apartment, and when the computer was opened, it displayed Eli's name.

An autopsy revealed that Budreau suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the head that entered the top of his head, traveled through his brain, and exited out the left side of his neck. This wound was consistent with a person lying face-down on the floor. Eli also suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the head that entered the back of his head, but the bullet became lodged in the side of his left eye. In addition to the gunshot wound, Eli had stippling on the back of his left hand, indicating that burned gunpowder had come in contact with his skin. The stippling and the wound together were consistent with Eli having been face-down on the ground with his hands behind his head at the time he was shot. The medical examiner determined homicide to be the manner of death for both victims.

Doss was subsequently charged as an accomplice with two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Eli and Budreau, two counts of accompanying armed criminal action, one count of first-degree robbery for forcibly stealing a computer from Eli, with an associated armed criminal action count, and one count of first-degree robbery for forcibly stealing a cell phone and/or wallet from Budreau, with an associated armed criminal action count.

Before trial, Doss withdrew a previous waiver of jury sentencing. Doss acknowledged that the State would likely present evidence of his “juvenile problems” during a penalty phase, but nonetheless indicated his desire to proceed with jury sentencing. Doss acknowledged that his counsel had advised him that his juvenile record “would come into evidence,” and he “agreed to that.”

During both opening statement and closing argument, Doss's counsel encouraged the jury to acquit Doss of the first-degree murder charges, arguing that, instead, Doss was guilty of only first-degree robbery and second-degree murder. The jury, apparently agreeing with Doss's theory, found him guilty of two counts of second-degree (felony) murder, two counts of first-degree robbery, and four counts of armed criminal action.

Before the penalty phase began, the State indicated its intent to introduce State's Exhibit 66 (a third amended petition from case number 16JV05–01195, a juvenile case involving Doss), which alleged that Doss engaged in actions that would have constituted second-degree burglary, misdemeanor stealing, and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, if committed by an adult. The State also indicated its intent to introduce State's Exhibit 65 (a motion to modify a prior disposition on case number 16JV05–01195), containing allegations that, since the prior disposition, Doss had accumulated forty incident reports, which included violations for assault, failure to comply, threatening peers and staff, inappropriate language, disruptive behavior, and disrespect for staff. The motion further indicated that Doss had been placed on a Behavioral Risk and Management Plan that included “special behavioral contracts, individual counseling[,] and anger management classes.” The motion to modify sought a placement review to determine a more appropriate placement than Hilltop Juvenile Detention Center, where he was then incarcerated, because he was continuing to struggle despite all the services he had been provided.

Doss objected to the exhibits, arguing that they were prejudicial and inflammatory, that there was no order finding Doss “guilty” of the conduct alleged in the juvenile petition, and that the juvenile records should be closed. The State presented an order from the family court releasing the records to the State to be used in the prosecution of State of Missouri v. Eria Doss, 394 S.W.3d 486 (Mo.App. W.D.2013). Doss argued that the order merely released the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • Green v. Wallace
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 21, 2016
    ...him and that Petitioner and/or his co-defendants took money from him. Petitioner argues that this case is analogous to State v. Doss, 394 S.W.3d 486 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013), in which the court found insufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendants took wallets from a crime scene. ......
  • State v. Prince
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 5, 2017
    ...Prince's acts, whether classified as criminal or delinquent, were criminal acts with legal consequences. See State v. Doss , 394 S.W.3d 486, 496-97 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (finding juvenile records prior to the constitutional amendment inadmissible but recognizing the records indicate the defe......
  • State v. Voss
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 2016
    ...only if the State proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant engaged in the conduct alleged.”12 State v. Doss, 394 S.W.3d 486, 496 (Mo.App.W.D.2013) (citing State v. Fassero, 256 S.W.3d 109, 119 (Mo. banc 2008) ). Our Court has held that testimony from a victim of a defe......
  • State v. Blair
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 2014
    ...by any evidence—that fits the crimes charged”). This case is indistinguishable from our recent opinion in State v. Doss, 394 S.W.3d 486 (Mo.App.W.D.2013).In Doss, the defendant was convicted of having robbed and killed two men. Id. at 488. The State charged that Doss had stolen a cell phone......
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
  • COMPUTER CRIMES
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...390 P.3d 1207, 1208 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017) (noting defendant’s third-degree theft conviction for stealing a computer); State v. Doss, 394 S.W.3d 486, 492–94 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (noting defendant’s f‌irst-degree robbery conviction for forcibly stealing a laptop). 216. National Stolen Propert......
  • Computer Crimes
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...390 P.3d 1207, 1208 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017) (noting defendant’s third-degree theft conviction for stealing a computer); State v. Doss, 394 S.W.3d 486, 492–94 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (noting defendant’s f‌irst-degree robbery conviction for forcibly stealing a laptop). 228. National Stolen Propert......
  • Computer Crimes
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...390 P.3d 1207, 1208 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017) (noting defendant’s third-degree theft conviction for stealing a computer); State v. Doss, 394 S.W.3d 486, 492–94 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (noting defendant’s f‌irst-degree robbery conviction for forcibly stealing a laptop). 538 A MERICAN C RIMINAL L AW......
  • §501 General Rule—privileges Recognized Only as Provided by Law
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Evidence Restated Deskbook Chapter 5 Privileges
    • Invalid date
    ...absent supporting evidence demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant engaged in the acts alleged. State v. Doss, 394 S.W.3d 486, 494–97 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013). Davis v. Alaska[, 415 U.S. 308 (1974),] holds that the right of confrontation overrides public policy such as......