State v. Forster
| Citation | 616 S.W.3d 436 |
| Decision Date | 17 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 107837,ED 107837 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Trenton E. FORSTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
For Appellant: James C. Egan, 1000 W. Nifong Blvd., Bldg. 7, Ste. 100, Columbia, MO 65203.
For Respondent: Evan J. Buchheim, 221 W. High St., Jefferson City, MO 65101.
Trenton E. Forster ("Forster") appeals his convictions for murder in the first degree, assault of a law enforcement officer in the second degree, and two counts of armed criminal action. Forster raises four points on appeal. In his first point, Forster argues that the mandatory sentence of life without parole ("LWOP") imposed under Section 565.0201 for the shooting death of Officer Blake Snyder ("Officer Snyder") is unconstitutional as applied to him as an eighteen-year-old defendant because the mandatory sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In his remaining points, Forster challenges the trial court's admission of testimony from Officer Snyder's wife ("Wife"), a photograph of Officer Snyder in uniform, and excerpts from a phone call Forster made while in jail awaiting trial. Forster argues the challenged evidence did not establish any elements or facts related to the charged offenses and was more prejudicial than probative. The Supreme Court of Missouri recently denied a similar constitutional challenge to Section 565.020's mandatory LWOP as applied to defendants eighteen years old and older in State v. Barnett, 598 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. banc 2020). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over this appeal and find Barnett dispositive of Forster's constitutional claim. With regard to Forster's evidentiary challenges, Wife's testimony and Officer Snyder's photograph were relevant to the murder victim's identity and were properly admitted into evidence by the trial court. Because the anti-police sentiments expressed in Forster's phone call were cumulative to other evidence properly admitted at trial, including evidence proffered by Forster, Forster cannot demonstrate any prejudice from the admission of his jail-house phone call. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On October 6, 2016, St. Louis County Police Officers Snyder and John Becker ("Officer Becker") responded to a 9-1-1 call from a residential house. In uniform and in a marked police vehicle, Officer Snyder pulled behind Forster's car. Officer Snyder approached Forster's driver's side door and tried to talk to Forster. Officer Snyder stated "show me your hands" and repeated "police, show me your hands." Forster then shot Officer Snyder in the face.
Officer Becker took cover and told Forster to show his hands. Forster responded, "I have a f---ing gun, kill me." As Forster kept moving within his car, Officer Becker opened fire on him. Forster said, "F---ing shoot me, I have a gun," and pointed his gun at Officer Becker. Officer Becker reloaded and fired several more shots at Forster, who dropped his gun and was handcuffed. Officer Snyder died from his gunshot wound. In addition to the handgun used to shoot Officer Snyder, police recovered an AK-47, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia from Forster's car.
The State charged Forster with murder in the first degree for the shooting of Officer Snyder, assault of a law enforcement officer in the second degree with respect to Officer Becker, and two counts of armed criminal action. At the time of the offenses, Forster was eighteen-years-and-four-months old.
The case proceeded to trial on January 30, 2019. Over Forster's objection, the State called Wife as its first witness. Wife testified that she and Officer Snyder had been married for three years and had a two-year-old son. Wife further testified that her husband had been a police officer with St. Louis County for four years and loved his job. Wife identified a photograph of Officer Snyder wearing his police uniform (the "Photograph"), which the trial court admitted into evidence over Forster's objection. Wife testified about being taken to the hospital, where she learned that her husband had died.
Over the course of several days, the State called over twenty witnesses. The State adduced evidence of Forster's conduct and mental state leading up to the incident. The evidence related Forster's social media as well as Forster obtaining a handgun and an AK-47 within five days before the shooting incident. Forster's social media posts in the months leading up to the incident included statements such as "I want f--- the police carved into my grave[,]" "I feel bad for him, man, I hate the police so much[,]" and "Please help me if possible, man, I'll explain why if I have to, but I need Percocet
, dude, like I'm legit about to go pull my .9 on a cop or some, I'm losing my f---ing mind, dude." A witness testified that the day before the incident, Forster had a handgun and said that if he got pulled over by police it "wasn't going to end well" and that he would "shoot a cop before" going to prison.
Over Forster's objection, the State also played an audio recording and submitted a transcript of an excerpt from a June 2017 phone call (the "Phone Call") between Forster and his father. The phone call occurred nine months after the shooting incident while Forster was in jail awaiting trial. During this call, Forster said that his father's "calling the police" on Forster was "some bi--- a-- sh--." Forster continued by saying that he did not mean to say his father was Forster's father then talked about how most police are good people doing their job. Forster responded by saying that "most officers in general are people that have been f---ing like bullies most of their life, or have a reason to want to get back at other people."
Forster maintained at trial that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit murder in the first degree, and that his act of shooting Officer Snyder to death constituted murder in the second degree. The defense called several witnesses, including forensic psychologist Dr. Patricia Zapf ("Dr. Zapf"), to address Forster's mental state at the time of the shooting. Dr. Zapf specifically testified regarding Forster's mental health problems. Dr. Zapf evaluated Forster prior to trial and conducted in-person interviews with Forster in June 2017. Dr. Zapf explained that Forster suffered from bipolar disorder
, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and polysubstance use disorder, which impacted Forster's behavior and thinking when he shot Officer Snyder. Dr. Zapf further testified about the "barrage of social media stuffed with all this [sic] antisocial attitudes that he has where he is saying F the police, and I don't care, and I want to take them out," noting that Forster experienced homicidal ideation associated specifically with police officers in connection with his bipolar disorder
. Dr. Zapf concluded that Forster's conduct was not a deliberate attempt at "suicide by cop" and that:
At the time of the offense [Forster] was manic, suicidal, paranoid and emotionally unstable. His initial action of shooting Officer Snyder appears to have been instinctive, reflexive [sic] action, and the reaction of being approached from the side under dark environmental conditions, and internal conditions of heightened fear, paranoia and hopelessness.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts.
Prior to sentencing, Forster objected to the imposition of the statutorily mandated sentence of LWOP for the count of first-degree murder. In his written objection, Forster stated that he was eighteen-years-and-four-months old at the time of the offense and noted that imposing a sentence of LWOP on persons under the age of eighteen had been ruled unconstitutional. Forster then reasoned that LWOP violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by constituting cruel and unusual punishment as applied to him because the four-month age difference between him and persons under eighteen years old was an arbitrary distinction in light of brain science studies referenced in recent jurisprudence from the United States Supreme Court. The sentencing court overruled the objection and sentenced Forster to LWOP pursuant to the statutory mandate on the count of first-degree murder, seven years in prison on the count of second-degree assault on a law enforcement officer, and ten years in prison on each of the two counts of armed criminal action, with all counts to run consecutively.
Forster appeals his conviction and sentence. Forster has moved to transfer this case to the Supreme Court on the basis that the appeal challenged the constitutionality of a state statute. This Court took the motion with the case.
Point One maintains the trial court erred in overruling Forster's sentencing objection to Section 565.020 as applied to Forster because the statute violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, Forster argues a national consensus exists that persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one are not fully adults, and that scientific data used to establish the judicial precedent declaring the imposition of a mandatory LWOP is cruel and unusual punishment for offenders under eighteen years of age equally applies to offenders of his age.
Points Two, Three, and Four allege the trial court erred in admitting Wife's testimony, the Photograph, and the Phone Call, respectively, because such evidence was more prejudicial than probative in that the evidence did not establish any facts or elements relating to the offenses and only served to arouse the jury's sympathy.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Osborn
...... side of her right eye and abrasions to her right arm and. knee, and Victim told her that the father of Victim's. unborn child had pushed or tripped her to the. ground.4F[5]. . . Cumulative. evidence is not prejudicial. State v. Forster, 616. S.W.3d 436, 448 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (cumulative evidence is. that which reiterates the same point, and a complaining party. is not entitled to assert prejudice if the challenged. evidence is cumulative to other admitted evidence). While. Defendant argues that ......
-
State v. Aaron
...from introducing the photograph because the defendant expresses a willingness to stipulate to some of the issues involved." Forster, 616 S.W.3d at 446 quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Aaron characterizes the admitted photograph as "grotesque" and "gruesome" and contends that it......