State v. Jordan
| Citation | 369 Wis.2d 72,879 N.W.2d 808 (Table) |
| Decision Date | 01 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2014AP2883–CR.,2014AP2883–CR. |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Joevone Martell JORDAN, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Joevone Martell Jordan appeals the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first-degree intentional homicide and attempted armed robbery with use of force. See Wis. Stat. §§ 940.01(1)(a)
, 943.32(2), & 939.32 (2009–10).1 Jordan argues the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to exclude evidence at trial related to a fake gun he had in his waistband at the time of his arrest and a jailhouse telephone conversation he had with his mother. We affirm.
¶ 2 Jordan was charged with first-degree intentional homicide and attempted armed robbery with use of force for shooting and killing the owner of the candy store he tried to rob. In addition to making formal statements to the police, Jordan also talked about his involvement in the crimes with a friend and family members.
¶ 3 After news of the shooting aired on television, Jordan's mother asked one of his cousins to speak to Jordan about his involvement. During that conversation, Jordan admitted that he shot the candy store owner. Jordan's cousin told his wife and the police about this conversation.
¶ 4 In addition, just before his arrest, Jordan was at the home of Sherita Carter, and he told her about the shooting. He told Carter that he still had a gun and that if the police tried to arrest him, Carter called the police. When they arrived, she told them that two people were inside her home and one of them was armed. When they went in, the officers found Jordan hiding inside the apartment with a fake Glock gun tucked in his waistband.
¶ 5 During their investigation, the police went to Jordan's mother's apartment. In Jordan's bedroom, they recovered a shotgun and a camouflage jacket that matched the description of the one worn by the shooter. The two cartridges in the gun matched the empty casings found at the scene of the murder. Jordan's fingerprint was on one of the cartridges inside the shotgun and his DNA was on the shotgun itself.
¶ 6 While Jordan was in jail awaiting his trial, he made several telephone calls. Some of the calls were recorded and certain portions of the conversations were transcribed. In Call Number 6, Jordan talked about the crime with his mother:
¶ 7 Months after Call Number 6 took place, Jordan moved to suppress the statements he made to police based on a Miranda violation.2 The circuit court granted the motion.
¶ 8 Later, Jordan filed motions in limine to exclude Call Number 6 from the evidence to be presented at his trial because the conversation included a reference to Jordan's formal statements to the police, which were ordered suppressed. Additionally, Jordan sought to exclude evidence of the fake Glock that the police found in his waistband at the time of his arrest, arguing that it was irrelevant to the charges against him.3
¶ 9 The circuit court denied these motions, and the case was tried to a jury with evidence of the fake Glock and Call Number 6 being admitted. The jury found Jordan guilty of the charges. On the homicide conviction, Jordan received a life sentence with eligibility for extended supervision after fifty years. On the attempted armed robbery conviction, he received a concurrent sentence of twenty years.
¶ 10 This court previously rejected a no-merit appeal that was filed on Jordan's behalf. New counsel was appointed and this appeal follows.
¶ 11 Jordan argues the circuit court erred when it denied his motions to exclude evidence related to the fake Glock and Call Number 6. The State argues both that the challenged evidence was properly admitted at trial and that even if it was improperly admitted, the errors were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Jordan's guilt.
¶ 12 The decision to grant or deny a motion in limine is committed to the discretion of the court, and we affirm if the circuit court applied the correct law to the facts of record and reached a reasonable result. See Grube v. Daun, 213 Wis.2d 533, 542, 570 N.W.2d 851 (1997)
. Whether a circuit court applied the correct legal standard in exercising its discretion is a question of law, which we review de novo. See
Garfoot v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 228 Wis.2d 707, 717, 599 N.W.2d 411 (Ct.App.1999).
¶ 13 Jordan argues that the evidence relating to the fake Glock is irrelevant and has no probative value. While Jordan concedes that the fact of his hiding from police was admissible, he differentiates his possession of the fake Glock. According to Jordan, the admission of this evidence served no purpose other than to confuse the jury.
¶ 14 The circuit court admitted this evidence on grounds that it showed consciousness of guilt. The circuit court explained that the fake gun's probative value in this regard was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, especially since there would be no risk that the jury would somehow confuse the fake pistol with the real shotgun that was used to kill the owner of the candy store.
¶ 15 Evidence of an accused's consciousness of guilt is admissible at trial. See Gauthier v. State, 28 Wis.2d 412, 420, 137 N.W.2d 101 (1965)
; see also
Wangerin v. State, 73 Wis.2d 427, 437, 243 N.W.2d 448 (1976) (). Wisconsin Stat. § 904.03 establishes our rule regarding exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. It states: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id.
¶ 16 We agree that evidence related to the fake Glock Jordan had in his waistband at the time of his arrest, when considered in conjunction with his hiding and his statements to Carter that “he wasn't going to jail” and “was going to have a shootout with [police],” speaks to a guilty state of mind. Jordan takes issue with “lump[ing]” together all of his conduct; however, he has not provided any legal authority to support the argument that his possession of the fake Glock should be considered in isolation. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis.2d 627, 646, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct.App.1992)
(). Accordingly, we conclude the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it allowed this evidence to be introduced at trial. See
State v. Quiroz, 2009 WI App 120, ¶ 20, 320 Wis.2d 706, 772 N.W.2d 710 ().
¶ 17 Even if we were to conclude that the circuit court erred in admitting the fake Glock at trial, the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Jordan's guilt. See State v. Semrau, 2000 WI App 54, ¶ 21, 233 Wis.2d 508, 608 N.W.2d 376
. Namely, Jordan admitted his role in the shooting to others. There was trial testimony that Jordan told his cousin he shot the candy store owner because the owner would not cooperate during the robbery attempt. Jordan also told Carter about the shooting and said that he still had the gun.
¶ 18 Additionally, the police recovered the murder weapon from Jordan's bedroom and found Jordan's DNA on it. Jordan's fingerprint was also on one of the cartridges inside the shotgun. In light of the overwhelming evidence against him, any error in admitting evidence of the fake Glock was harmless. There is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the outcome of the action. See Schwigel v. Kohlmann, 2005 WI App 44, ¶ 11, 280 Wis.2d 193, 694 N.W.2d 467
.
¶ 19 Jordan also argues that evidence related to Call Number 6 should have been excluded at trial because the discussion that took place was based on the suppressed statements he made to police, and as such, the conversation was the improper fruit of a Miranda violation. He asserts that the holding in State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, 285 Wis.2d 86, 700 N.W.2d 899
, should be extended to the circumstances presented here. In Knapp, our supreme court held that “[w]here physical evidence is obtained as the direct result of an intentional Miranda violation, ... our constitution requires...
To continue reading
Request your trial