State v. Leitner
| Decision Date | 17 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 20595,20595 |
| Citation | 945 S.W.2d 565 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Ward Wayne LEITNER, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Roy W. Brown, Bruce B. Brown, Kearney, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Cheryl A. Caponegro, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Appellant, Ward Wayne Leitner (Defendant) appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of two felony counts. He was convicted on September 13, 1995, of second degree murder, § 565.021.1, 1 and armed criminal action, § 571.015. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment and 100 years, respectively.
The procedural facts which are relevant to this appeal are as follows:
November 3, 1993, to March 30, 1994--Felony complaint filed, preliminary hearing conducted, Defendant waived formal arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty (specific dates are not relevant to this appeal).
April 26, 1994--Defendant filed a Motion for a Change of Venue from Howell County, Missouri.
June 9, 1994--Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue was sustained and the case transferred to Phelps County, Missouri.
June 23, 1994--The case was filed in the Circuit Court of Phelps County, Missouri.
March 9, 1995--The case was set for a five day jury trial starting on July 31, 1995.
July 3, 1995--Defendant filed a "Motion to Dismiss Cause of Action and Discharge Defendant". This motion was based upon Section 545.890 and Section 545.920 RSMo.
July 10, 1995--Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed on July 3, 1995.
July 27, 1995--State filed a Motion for Continuance. In it's Motion the State alleged that the Prosecuting Attorney's office was shorthanded and requested a Special Prosecuting Attorney be appointed and that the Special Prosecuting Attorney requested by the State had prior commitments and was unavailable for trial as currently scheduled. Defendant objected to this Motion. The Court sustained the State's Motion and appointed a Special Prosecuting Attorney and reset the case for jury trial starting on September 12, 1995.
September 12, 1995--Jury trial began and Defendant filed an "Amended Motion to Dismiss Cause of Action and Discharge Defendant." This was denied.
The relevant facts as presented at trial viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict are as follows:
On the evening of November 2, 1993, Janet Hatch, the victim, Rebecca Hatch, 2 her seventeen year old daughter, and Defendant went to Wal-Mart in West Plains, Missouri, to buy a calculator because Defendant believed Janet was spending too much of her money. Once at Wal-Mart, Janet realized that she did not have her checkbook with her to make the purchase. Defendant became upset with Janet and told her, "if you're going to act like a child, I'm going to whip your ass like a child." Defendant, Janet and Rebecca stayed in Wal-Mart for another five to ten minutes before they returned to their home at 1313 Cynthia in West Plains, Missouri.
Once they returned home, Defendant made Janet lie naked on the floor with a pillow underneath her. Defendant then went and got the cord from the vacuum cleaner and hit Janet with it, from her neck down to the back of her knees, including the areas of her back and buttocks. Defendant looped the cord and swung it in an overhand fashion. Defendant then told Janet to roll over onto her back and Defendant hit her with the cord on the front of her body, from her chest to her knees. Janet asked Defendant to stop, but he refused. When Janet raised her head up and again asked Defendant to stop, Defendant said, "if you pick your head up again, I'm going to stomp your face."
After beating Janet, front and back, with the vacuum cord, Defendant called his mother who lived a few blocks away, and told her he was coming over to feed his dog. Defendant told Rebecca not to feel sorry for Janet "because she's just playing a pity party" and he also told Rebecca not to help her mother. Defendant instructed Janet to take a shower and then get on the exercise bike in the front room of the home before he returned.
After Defendant left for his mother's house, Rebecca tried to help Janet bathe and Janet mentioned that she felt light-headed and dizzy. When Defendant returned to the home, Janet was still in the bathroom. Defendant asked why Janet was not on the exercise bike and Rebecca explained that she was still in the bathroom.
Defendant went into the bathroom, grabbed Janet by the hair, brought her into the front room and told her to get on the exercise bike. Janet was standing but she was bent over and she told Defendant that she couldn't get on the bike because she was feeling faint. Defendant said, Janet kept saying that she felt faint, and was unable to get on the bike. Defendant hit her twice with his fist in her face. Janet fell against the wall three or four times after Defendant hit her. When Defendant had dragged Janet into the front room by her hair, her buttocks were bleeding; after Defendant punched her, there was blood on the wall near the exercise bike. There were also blood spots on the pillow that Defendant had told Janet to put on the floor.
Defendant continued to hit Janet in the face and Janet kept hitting the wall. Rebecca did not intervene while Defendant beat her mother as she testified she was afraid of Defendant and, in addition, she was four months pregnant. Defendant also hit Janet with a metal cane that Janet used to aid in walking.
At another point during this same series of events, Defendant started to get "real mad" and started hitting Janet between her shoulder blades with a miniature baseball bat. When Janet fell, Defendant picked her up and started hitting her on her back and buttocks with the cane. When Janet fell again, Defendant picked her up and hit her on the chest and stomach with the cane. Defendant told Rebecca to wake Janet up and the two started shaking Janet. When Janet didn't awaken, Defendant dragged her into the front room and started CPR. The beatings lasted over two hours.
Defendant told Rebecca to phone his mother, who arrived at the residence shortly thereafter. Defendant's mother suggested that they had better call 911 since Janet looked dead. An ambulance soon arrived and Janet was taken to the emergency room at Ozarks Medical Center. Janet had a bruise on her face and a cut on her head. Janet's mid-section was purple, bleeding and completely covered with welts and lacerations.
At approximately 11:00 p.m. that evening, Officers Darrin Reed and Charles Brotherton of the West Plains Police Department responded to the Ozarks Medical Center. Officer Reed spoke with Rebecca, who indicated that her mother had gone out for the evening, had returned home in the condition she was in when she was transported to the emergency room, and had gone in the kitchen and fallen and hit her head.
Officer Brotherton also went to Defendant's residence at 1313 Cynthia where he found an exercise bike in the living room area, a miniature bat in the kitchen and an electric cord in the master bedroom. Officer Brotherton also noticed lashing marks on the ceiling. He took swabbings and samples of various red stains in the residence and submitted these samples, as well as pillows and the electrical cord found in the home, to the crime lab. Testing indicated that the electrical cord had human protein on it which contained an enzyme present in Janet's blood. A state serologist also detected either human protein or human blood in swabs taken from a dish towel, a bath towel, purple shorts and a t-shirt, a blanket and carpet strands taken from 1313 Cynthia.
Meanwhile, Defendant and Rebecca went to Defendant's mother's house. Defendant told Rebecca to keep to the story that she had told police but later, Rebecca received a call from Officer Reed who left a message for her to come to the police department. Once there, Rebecca changed her statement and explained that Defendant and Janet had gotten into an argument over a check that had bounced, that they were on their way to Wal-Mart, and that Defendant had told Janet that she had an "ass-whipping coming when she got home." Once at home, Rebecca indicated Defendant took a vacuum sweeper cord and beat Janet with it. While Rebecca had initially told police that Janet had gone out that evening to see her (Rebecca's) father, and had returned injured, at trial Rebecca testified that Janet had not been visiting Rebecca's father, George Hatch, and that, in fact, the couple had been separated for several months. Rebecca told police that Defendant had told her to make the earlier false statement that she had given at the hospital; she had done so because she feared Defendant was nearby. At the police department, however, Rebecca said she felt more comfortable and safe.
At trial, Rebecca also explained that on October 30, 1993, three days before her mother's death, Defendant had hit her (Rebecca) on her back, buttocks and front with a looped over vacuum cleaner cord. On that same occasion, Defendant also hit Rebecca in the face with his hand and fist. Rebecca had bruises on her back, buttocks, front and face as a result and a clerk at the Ozarks Medical Center photographed Rebecca's bruises.
Dr. James Spindler performed the autopsy on Janet on November 3, 1993. Dr. Spindler determined that the cause of death was massive multiple blunt force trauma to the head and all over the body. He also determined that Janet had nine rib fractures and collapsed lungs.
The injuries to Janet's lower legs were caused by a cylindrical object and she was struck approximately ten times with this object. The injuries to the backs of Janet's thighs and buttocks were caused by a loop of wire. She had been struck over one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Albanese
...or outcome of the ca[u]se, matter or proceeding.'" Fletcher, 948 S.W.2d at 438 (quoting section 575.040.2); see also State v. Leitner, 945 S.W.2d 565, 574 (Mo. App. 1997). To this materiality standard for determining perjured testimony, we are required to overlay the materiality standard of......
-
State v. Sapien
...State v. Still, 216 S.W.3d 261, 270 (Mo.App. S.D.2007); State v. Uka, 25 S.W.3d 624, 627 (Mo.App. E.D.2000); and State v. Leitner, 945 S.W.2d 565, 575 (Mo.App. S.D.1997). The “opened-door” doctrine presumes, however, that it is the defendant who “opened the door” to a particular line of inq......
-
State v. Still
...against Tinsley in order to show that her lack of cooperation was attributable to her fear of Defendant. See State v. Leitner, 945 S.W.2d 565, 574-75 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Ficke, 892 S.W.2d 814, 817 (Mo.App.1995); State v. Coutee, 879 S.W.2d 762, 768 (Mo.App. 1994). Such evidence was supp......
-
State v. Rutter
...a different result on a new trial; and (4) it is not cumulative only or merely impeaching the credit of the witness. State v. Leitner, 945 S.W.2d 565, 574 (Mo.App. 1997)(quoting State v. Amrine, 741 S.W.2d 665, 674 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 1756, 100 L.Ed.2d 21......