State v. Hollowell
| Decision Date | 17 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | ED108941 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. ERIC G. HOLLOWELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Washington County Honorable Wendy W. Horn Judge
Eric Hollowell ("Appellant") appeals his convictions of fifteen counts of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.070.[1] Appellant was sentenced to concurrent seven-year sentences on fourteen counts and a four-year sentence for the fifteenth count to be served consecutively, for eleven years in the Missouri Department of Corrections ("DOC").
Appellant raises four points on appeal. In Point I, Appellant argues the trial court erred by overruling his motion for acquittal because the State failed to prove he possessed and controlled the firearms. In Point II, Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting inadmissible hearsay testimony to establish Appellant's control over the firearms. In Point III, Appellant argues the trial court erred and violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation right by permitting a police officer to testify about Appellant's wife's testimonial hearsay statement, establishing Appellant's control over the firearms. In Point IV Appellant argues his right to be free of double jeopardy was violated because the unit of prosecution permitted by section 571.070 is ambiguous.
Points I and II are dispositive. We reverse and need not consider Points III and IV.
On December 19, 2018, Appellant was arrested in Irondale Missouri after his wife Beckey reported him to police for domestic violence against her.[2] After Appellant's arrest Beckey informed police Appellant had a prior felony conviction and kept numerous firearms in their home, in violation of Missouri's felon-in-possession of a firearm statute, section 571.070. Section 571.070 provides:
Beckey gave Detective Ethan Haworth and members of the Washington County Sheriff's Department consent to search the lower level of their home, where Appellant, Beckey, and three grandchildren lived.[3] Beckey showed them a locked safe, which she unlocked using a key in her possession. The safe contained fifteen firearms and ammunition, which the officers seized. Appellant was not present during the search because he was already in custody.
On December 21, 2018, Beckey contacted the Sheriff's Department again and informed them Appellant had two antique, black powder firearms in the house. The antique firearms were not discovered during the first search because they were in a closet, not in the safe with the other firearms. Detective Haworth returned to the home and seized the antique firearms.
The State charged Appellant with fifteen counts of unlawful possession of a firearm for the fifteen guns in the safe. Appellant was not charged with possession of the antique firearms. The State expected to call three witnesses at trial: Beckey, Detective Haworth, and Corrections Officer Cody Bennett.
During opening statements, the State told the jury Beckey would testify Appellant had keys to the gun safe, owned the guns in the safe, and frequently used the guns. The State also said Beckey would testify she periodically purchased guns on Appellant's behalf. Beckey did not testify at trial, purportedly because she had a medical emergency requiring hospitalization.[4]
Officer Bennett was a corrections officer at the facility where Appellant was held after his arrest. Officer Bennett testified Appellant "said he was being charged with the [antique] handgun that he had, but not the guns in the safe." The State argued Appellant's statement to Officer Bennett established Appellant knew of the guns in the safe and considered them his property.
Detective Haworth testified about the Sheriff's Department's search of the home and seizure of firearms and ammunition. Over Appellant's objection, Detective Haworth testified Beckey told him Appellant "had several firearms at their home, and so that's what prompted [Detective Haworth] to go [to Appellant's home]." Appellant argued Detective Haworth's recitation of Beckey's out-of-court statements constituted inadmissible hearsay because they involved an element of section 571.070: Appellant's possession and control of the firearms in the safe. The State argued Detective Haworth's statement was admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of explaining subsequent police conduct, the search of Appellant's home. The trial court permitted Detective Haworth to make the statement for purposes of explaining his subsequent conduct, based on the State's representation Beckey would testify to the same facts on direct examination.[5]
On cross-examination, Appellant's trial counsel asked Detective Haworth, "You ultimately went to Beckey Hollowell's residence because she's the one who provided you with information that there were firearms, correct?" Detective Haworth replied, "Yes." During argument on Appellant's motion for acquittal at the close of the State's evidence, the State argued trial counsel's question introduced Beckey's statement Appellant possessed the guns in the safe into evidence without limitation, waiving Appellant's earlier objection. The trial court agreed and denied Appellant's motion for acquittal.
The State used Beckey's claim Appellant possessed the guns for its truth in closing argument. The prosecutor argued to the jury:
Now, you also heard that Beckey Hollowell, his wife, told Detective Haworth that the guns belonged to Eric. That was her statement, that the guns belonged to Eric, not to her. So could that - could Eric exercise control over the guns? Absolutely. If he had the keys with him, obviously. If Beckey had the keys, he could just go get the keys from her; they're married.
Part of Appellant's defense strategy was establishing he lacked control over the safe by offering evidence the safe contained guns other people owned. Appellant noted the safe contained an AR-15 rifle Beckey purchased in her own name, two guns engraved with the names and initials of other members of the household, and a defective Derringer Model 10 handgun belonging to an acquaintance of Beckey and Appellant, James Rayman.
Rayman testified he knew Beckey and Appellant because he worked at the Elks Lodge where they played bingo. Rayman testified he told Beckey and Appellant he was having problems with his gun and Beckey said she knew a person who could fix it. Rayman testified he handed the gun to Beckey and she put it in her purse. Rayman admitted he never saw Appellant hold the gun and he did not know what Beckey did with it after she left.
Appellant was convicted on all counts and sentenced to eleven years in the DOC. This appeal follows. Additional factual and procedural history will be provided below as necessary to address Appellant's claims.
Our review of sufficiency of the evidence claims is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181, 184 (Mo. banc 2001). We accept as true all evidence favorable to the verdict and inferences from the evidence, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. We will not supply missing evidence or give the State the benefit of unreasonable, speculative, or forced inferences. Id.
We review the trial court's admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. State v. Anderson, 76 S.W.3d 275, 276 (Mo. banc 2002). Abuse of discretion occurs when the court's ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances or when it is arbitrary and unreasonable. State v. Boyd, 143 S.W.3d 36, 40 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). Reversal is required when there is a reasonable probability the error affected the trial's outcome. Id.
We discuss Point II first because it requires reversal and is dispositive of Point I. On direct examination, Detective Haworth testified he went to Appellant and Beckey's house because Beckey told him Appellant had guns. Appellant's trial counsel objected, arguing Beckey's out-of-court statement was inadmissible hearsay because it reached an issue to be decided by the fact finder - whether Appellant possessed the guns - and went beyond what was necessary to explain subsequent police conduct. Trial counsel offered to stipulate Detective Haworth went to the house because he knew there were guns inside. The trial court permitted Detective Haworth to repeat Beckey's claim Appellant had guns in the house, "assum[ing] [Beckey]'s going to be here to testify as to these facts." The court instructed the jury the statement could be used only for the non-hearsay purpose of explaining Detective Haworth's subsequent search of Appellant's house.
On cross-examination, Appellant's trial counsel asked Detective Haworth, "You ultimately went to Beckey Hollowell's residence because she's the one who provided you with information that...
To continue reading
Request your trial