State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 04 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 113,409,113,409 |
| Citation | 398 P.3d 856 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jason A. JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.
Jason A. Jones appeals his convictions of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, and aggravated kidnapping. This is a companion case to State v. Sean , No. 114,417, an appeal from convictions arising out of the same series of events presented in this case. Jones argues (1) his right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated when forensic testing results came into evidence without Jones having the opportunity to cross-examine the laboratory analyst who performed the tests; and (2) certain hearsay statements were erroneously admitted by the trial court. Because we conclude that any error on the part of the trial court was harmless, we affirm.
In January of 2013, Jason A. Jones worked at an automotive shop owned by Dang Sean. Shawn Lindsey had been Sean's business partner in the shop until sometime in 2012, and he owed Sean money. On Friday, January 11, 2013, Sean directed Anthony Garza to pick up Lindsey and bring him to the shop, apparently to discuss the debt. Sean had met Garza a year earlier when Garza sold him a computer. Since that meeting, Garza had spent time at Sean's auto shop because Garza's girlfriend worked there. Garza, accompanied by his nephew Reuben Carrion, Jr., and his friend Aaron Stricker, drove to Lindsey's home.
Lindsey's girlfriend, Chelsea Bernhard, was home with Lindsey when the three men arrived. Bernhard testified that Lindsey talked with Garza and then Lindsey told her that he had to go to Sean's auto shop.
Sean, Jones, and three other shop employees—Will Coleman, Justin Jones (Justin) and Phomphikak Phouthalaksa (Air)—were at the shop when Garza and Lindsey arrived around 7 p.m. Sean and Lindsey began discussing the debt. Shortly after their conversation began, Sean began punching and kicking Lindsey and knocked him to the floor.
After the beating, Sean told Jones to take Lindsey, along with Garza and Stricker, to look for Lindsey's truck. While not entirely clear from the record, Sean may have wanted the truck as some type of collateral for the debt. The men left the shop, and Sean left shortly thereafter.
Garza testified that while the men were driving in Jones' car looking for the truck, he spoke to Justin on the phone, who told him to zip-tie Lindsey and not let him go when they returned to the shop. Coleman testified that when the men returned to the shop, Jones was on his telephone and informed the person on the other end of the call that the men still did not have the truck. Coleman then heard Jones tell the others to make sure Lindsey did not leave.
Sean, carrying a duffel bag, arrived back at the shop shortly after the men had returned from looking for Lindsey's truck. According to Coleman, Sean was also carrying a gun and a syringe. Sean ordered someone to zip-tie Lindsey's hands together. Coleman stated that someone then zip-tied Lindsey's hands.
Garza noticed that Justin was holding a bag of methamphetamine and Jones was holding a spoon. He estimated that the bag contained a quarter ounce of methamphetamine—35 times the amount of a typical single dose. Garza heard Justin and Jones discuss needing to find a torch to melt the methamphetamine. Garza observed Jones pour the methamphetamine into the spoon while Sean was holding a syringe and needle.
According to Garza, Justin held Lindsey's right arm while Sean injected Lindsey. Lindsey pleaded for them to stop and promised to pay Sean back. After the injection, Air approached with an electric fence, and Justin and Jones wrapped the fence around Lindsey. Jones gave a car battery starter to Air, who connected the battery to the fence but did not turn it on.
Sean approached Lindsey with a firearm and an air soft gun. Sean began shooting Lindsey with pellets from the air soft gun, and Garza testified that Lindsey began shaking violently. Sean pointed the firearm at Lindsey and then shot pellets from the air gun at the battery charger in a failed attempt to turn it on. Garza eventually removed the fence.
After he removed the fence, Garza heard someone say that Lindsey was "almost gone" and "about to go." Sean told Garza to cut the zip ties at Lindsey's feet so Lindsey could walk to the truck because they were going to take him to the hospital. Jones and Sean led Lindsey to a black Silverado truck and loaded him in. After loading Lindsey, Sean told Garza to "get the fuck out of here" so Garza and Stricker walked out of the shop and left.
At 10:47 p.m., a security camera in the parking lot of the Humane Society recorded a vehicle on an access road close to the area where Lindsey's body was later discovered. The State posited that this was the black Silverado truck dumping Lindsey's body.
Garza received a text from Jones later that night, instructing Garza not to say anything to his girlfriend. Hours later, Jones and Justin picked Garza up and took him back to the shop. When they got to the shop, Sean told Garza that if Garza or Stricker said anything he would kill them.
On January 13, 2013, Bernhard notified police that she had not seen Lindsey for 2 days. On January 16, Lindsey's body was discovered lying face down in a field close to the Humane Society. The body had ligature marks on the left wrist. An initial autopsy did not reveal a cause of death but revealed injuries to the wrist
consistent with zip ties. A subsequent toxicology report revealed high levels of methamphetamine in Lindsey's blood. Based on these results, the coroner determined that the cause of death was methamphetamine toxicity and that the manner of death was homicide.
A jury convicted Jones of first-degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and aggravated kidnapping. The court sentenced Jones to life with no opportunity for parole for 25 years on the first-degree premeditated murder count and 165 months in prison on the kidnapping count, with the sentences to run consecutive to each other. Jones timely appeals to this court.
Jones presents two issues in this appeal. Each is addressed in turn.
After Lindsey's body was recovered, a laboratory technician physically performed tests on Lindsey's blood and recorded the raw data. Dr. Timothy Rohrig, the chief toxicologist at the laboratory, later interpreted this raw data to determine that there were high levels of methamphetamine present in the blood. From these results, Dr. Timothy Gorrill, the coroner, determined that methamphetamine toxicity was the cause of Lindsey's death.
During the trial, Dr. Gorrill testified regarding the toxicology results and what they meant according to common reference texts. Jones objected on foundation grounds with regard to the test results, arguing that those results should come in through Dr. Rohrig. Jones also objected on " Crawford issues with regard to the reference to the text." The trial judge overruled these objections. Dr. Gorrill opined that the cause of death was methamphetamine toxicity. Jones offered no objection to that assessment.
Dr. Rohrig testified after Dr. Gorrill and reported the results of the laboratory tests during his testimony. Jones objected on grounds of hearsay and " Crawford " because Dr. Rohrig had not performed the tests himself. The trial court overruled the objection, stating that Dr. Rohrig had established that he was the director of the facility, that he had written the testing protocol, and that the employees followed that protocol.
Jones' first issue on appeal is that the State's introduction of the forensic test results revealing high levels of methamphetamine in Lindsey's body violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness. Sean contends that he was denied his right because the laboratory analyst who performed the tests did not testify.
An appellate court employs an unlimited standard of review when addressing whether a defendant's right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment has been violated. State v. Johnson , 297 Kan. 210, 224, 301 P.3d 287 (2013).
The Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial statements and prohibits the admission of such statements by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. State v. Williams , 306 Kan. 175, 182, 392 P.3d 1267 (2017).
In Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts , 557 U.S. 305, 310, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that a certificate of analysis showing the results of a forensic examination that had been performed on substances seized by police was testimonial. Because the certificate was testimonial, the Court held that the prosecution could not introduce the certificate without presenting it through the in-court testimony of a witness who could swear to the truth of the statements contained in the certificate. Melendez–Diaz , 557 U.S. at 311, 129 S.Ct. 2527.
In Bullcoming v. New Mexico , 564 U.S. 647, 651, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011), the Court further defined a testimonial statement when it held that the Confrontation Clause does not permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—created to prove a fact at a criminal trial—through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification.
Jones relies on this caselaw and more in support of his argument. However, even if we assume that the admission...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gutierrez-Fuentes, No. 120,339
...determination regarding whether hearsay is admissible under a statutory exception for an abuse of discretion." See State v. Jones , 306 Kan. 948, 957, 398 P.3d 856 (2017). A district court abuses its discretion by taking an action that is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; based on an er......
-
Hernandez v. Pistotnik
...trial court's findings, this court presumes that the trial court found all facts necessary to support its judgment." State v. Jones , 306 Kan. 948, 959, 398 P.3d 856 (2017). And Yudi had other means of obtaining information that Brad had made misrepresentations in his advertisements. Yudi s......
-
In re R.J.
... ... In re Care ... & Treatment of Emerson , 306 Kan. 30, 34, 392 P.3d 82 ... (2017). Venue is a matter of jurisdiction. State v ... McElroy , 281 Kan. 256, 264, 130 P.3d 100 (2006), ... overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn , 304 ... Kan. 773, 375 ... found all facts necessary to support its judgment. State ... v. Jones , 306 Kan. 948, 959, 398 P.3d 856 (2017) ... Third, ... we have reviewed the district court's oral and written ... ...
-
State v. Armstrong
... ... disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, ... to the opposing party, the feasibility of rectifying that ... prejudice by a continuance, and any other relevant ... circumstances." State v. Jones , 209 Kan. 526, ... Syl. ¶ 2, 498 P.2d 65 (1972). Other relevant ... circumstances may include whether the party's violation ... was willful or intentional, done in good faith or bad faith, ... or was a repeated instance of noncompliance. State v ... Winter , 238 ... ...