State v. Harris
| Decision Date | 22 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 101654,ED 101654 |
| Citation | 477 S.W.3d 131 |
| Parties | State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Daaron Harris, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Daniel N. McPherson, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for Plaintiff/Respondent.
Timothy J. Forneris, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for Defendant/Appellant.
Daaron Harris (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of murder in the first degree, one count of burglary, and two counts of armed criminal action. We affirm.
The State charged Appellant, as a prior and persistent offender, with one count of first-degree murder, one count of burglary, and two counts of armed criminal action. Appellant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is as follows.
On August 29, 2011, Deon Greenwood (Victim) was at the apartment of his girlfriend, Destiny Harris (Harris), along with several of Harris's family members. They were watching television when they heard a loud noise coming from downstairs. Victim, who was unarmed, went downstairs to investigate. The upstairs occupants heard three or four gunshots, then ran and hid in the closets. When the shooting stopped, Harris looked out the window and saw two men walking away, one of whom was holding a "long gun."
The rear door to the apartment was bent and appeared to have been forced open. Based on the cartridge casings and shotgun pellets recovered, the firearms examiner believed three different guns were used in the attack. An autopsy revealed Victim died of multiple gunshot wounds
.
Over the course of the next several months, St. Louis Metropolitan Police identified Appellant as a possible suspect and a wanted was issued for Appellant on March 26, 2012.
On April 21, 2012, Appellant took his father to the hospital. Appellant left after an altercation with hospital security. Shortly thereafter, at approximately 3:00 or 4:00 p.m., Appellant was pulled over and arrested by police on another matter. Appellant testified he was able to hide crack cocaine, marijuana, and a bottle of Percocet
on his body before being arrested. Appellant was handcuffed behind his back and was placed in a police transport vehicle.
Appellant testified that while in transport, he called his mother and learned that his father had died. Appellant testified he took multiple Percocet
pills in an attempt to commit suicide. Appellant stated he took the rest of the Percocet and smoked the marijuana while at the Justice Center, but the crack cocaine had been taken from him. Appellant testified he had taken a total of 30 Percocets
between the time of his arrest and his interview with police, and that he had fallen asleep after taking the remaining pills at the Justice Center the night before the interview.
On April 22, 2012, Detective Steven Strohmeyer (Det. Strohmeyer) learned that Appellant had been taken into custody and was at the Justice Center. That morning, Det. Strohmeyer and Det. Heather Sabin (Det. Sabin) picked up Appellant from the Justice Center and transported him across the street to police headquarters to interview him. The detectives did not talk to Appellant during transport or in the interview room other than the time their conversation was recorded. Det. Strohmeyer read Appellant his Miranda1 rights and Appellant indicated he understood his rights. Det. Strohmeyer presented Appellant with a police department Miranda warning and waiver form and advised Appellant of the form's contents. Appellant signed the warning and waiver form.
Det. Strohmeyer testified that at the beginning of the interview Appellant was crying and upset about his father but he regained his composure and was able to answer the questions. Det. Strohmeyer testified Appellant seemed to understand the questions being asked. Det. Strohmeyer did not know if Appellant had eaten any meals or slept while at the Justice Center, but Appellant did bring a juice with him to the interview. Det. Strohmeyer testified he did not ask Appellant if he had taken any drugs before the interview because Appellant admitted using cigarettes and marijuana but denied having a drug problem. Det. Strohmeyer testified Appellant did not ask for a break during the interview but he would have given Appellant one if requested.
Appellant testified at trial in his defense. Appellant admitted to having two prior felony convictions for possession of a controlled substance, specifically crack cocaine, and two misdemeanor marijuana possession cases. Appellant asserted he had not been fed anything between his arrest on April 21 and the interview with the detectives on April 22. Appellant stated he was depressed about his father's death and had not been able to talk to his family.
Appellant testified he told Det. Strohmeyer while in the car being transported to the interview that he did not want to talk to the detectives and that he wanted an attorney. Appellant testified the detectives threatened to charge his brothers with the murder if Appellant did not cooperate with the police and told Appellant they would release him after he confessed.
Appellant told the detectives he had been threatened by a man named Darrell Scott (Scott) and had hidden a rifle in a nearby gangway. On the day of the murder, an argument broke out between Appellant, Scott, and several other men. One person pulled a gun and fired at Appellant, who ducked. Appellant said the shooter and two other men, including Victim, ran into the apartment building. Appellant stated he followed the men into the building and fired about two shots.
Appellant acknowledged Det. Strohmeyer read him his rights before the interview but stated he was not thinking clearly during the interview because of the drugs he had taken. Appellant asserted he confessed to the murder to protect his brothers and because he thought the police would release him. Appellant testified he made up the entire confession and denied owning a gun or shooting Victim.
In rebuttal, Det. Sabin denied threatening Appellant's brothers and denied Appellant requested an attorney or told the detectives he did not want to talk with them.
After deliberations, the jury found Appellant guilty on all counts. On June 20, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life without the possibility of parole on the murder conviction, a consecutive 30–year term for the burglary conviction, and two concurrent 30–year terms for the armed criminal action convictions. This appeal follows. Appellant raises six points on appeal.
Jury deliberations began at 2:10 p.m. on April 30, 2014. The jury asked several questions, including whether they would be expected to stay that evening until they reached a verdict. The court advised the jury they would not be expected to deliberate beyond 5:00 p.m. and they could deliberate further in the morning. At 5:05 p.m., the court adjourned for the evening. Deliberations resumed the following day at 9:10 a.m. At 10:15 a.m., the court received a message from the foreperson stating, Defense counsel objected to the court speaking with the juror and requested a mistrial. The court determined it needed to talk to the juror and brought her into open court with the attorneys present.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nichols
...a motion to suppress, the inquiry is limited to whether the court's decision is supported by substantial evidence." State v. Harris , 477 S.W.3d 131, 140 (Mo.App.E.D.2015).We will only reverse a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress if the decision is clearly erroneous. Id . This Cou......
-
State v. Joseph
...by the police, it must be demonstrated that the defendant's will was overborne as a result of said tactics." State v. Harris , 477 S.W.3d 131, 140 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).Defendant relies on Mincey v. Arizona , where the United States Supreme Court held that the defendant's incriminating state......
-
State v. Clark
...given the other details of this crime, the court's statement referencing suppressed evidence warrants reversal. See State v. Harris, 477 S.W.3d 131 (Mo.App. E.D.2015) (“vague references to other uncharged crimes during trial were insufficient to warrant reversal”).Clark's third point on app......
-
Harris v. Stange
...Court of Appeals for the Eastern District affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal (Doc. 14-4; State v. Harris, 477 S.W.3d 131 (Mo.Ct.App. 2015)). On November 5, 2015, Petitioner's Motion for or, in the Alternative, Application for Transfer was denied. On December 22, ......