State v. Madrigal
| Docket Number | ED 110073 |
| Decision Date | 20 September 2022 |
| Citation | 652 S.W.3d 758 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Juan MADRIGAL, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
For Appellant: William J. Swift, 1000 W. Nifong Blvd., Bldg. 7, Ste. 100, Columbia, MO 65203.
For Respondent: Daniel N. McPherson, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.
Juan Madrigal, Jr. ("Madrigal") appeals from the trial court's judgment following jury convictions on first-degree domestic assault, second-degree domestic assault, and attempted victim tampering. Madrigal raises four points on appeal. Point One challenges the sufficiency of the State's evidence that Madrigal caused Victim serious physical injury to sustain his conviction on the class A felony of first-degree domestic assault. Point Two contends the omission of the definition of serious physical injury from the jury instruction for first-degree domestic assault was prejudicial error. Points Three and Four maintain the trial court abused its discretion in admitting prior bad act evidence that was more prejudicial than probative. Evidence was presented at trial showing Victim's loss of consciousness along with bruising and abrasions to various parts of Victim's body after being strangled by Madrigal. Because such evidence was sufficient to prove Madrigal caused Victim serious physical injury, we deny Point One. Because the trial court instructed the jury on the definition of serious physical injury in a separate instruction pursuant to the Missouri Approved Instructions–Criminal 4th (2017) ("MAI-CR") Notes on Use, no instructional error occurred, and we deny Point Two. The record shows that evidence of Madrigal's prior bad acts was properly admitted at trial either because Madrigal opened the door to such evidence through his cross-examination of Victim or because the evidence was relevant to prove Madrigal's intent to harm Victim and presented a complete and coherent picture of their relationship and what led to the charged offenses. Accordingly, we deny Points Three and Four and affirm the trial court's judgment.
The following facts are presented in the light most favorable to conviction. See State v. Stewart, 560 S.W.3d 531, 533 (Mo. banc 2018) (quoting State v. Wright, 382 S.W.3d 902, 903 (Mo. banc 2012) ).
The incident underlying this appeal arose during a domestic dispute between Madrigal and Victim on April 5, 2019. Victim was living at the house belonging to her mother ("Mother"). Madrigal moved in when he and Victim began dating. Victim and Madrigal's relationship was marked by arguments and fights. On the day of the incident that led to the present charges, Madrigal and Victim were arguing when Madrigal backhanded Victim, striking her in the mouth and causing her lip to bleed. Victim told Madrigal that their relationship was over and he needed to move out. Madrigal yelled at Victim to sit on the bed as he began packing his belongings, then started to strangle her with his hands around her throat. Madrigal grabbed Victim by the front of her shirt and dragged her through the house. Madrigal took Victim to the kitchen, where he strangled her until she lost consciousness. Victim's head was against the sink, and when she regained consciousness, she had trouble breathing and was hyperventilating. Victim asked Madrigal to stop but he again strangled her until she lost consciousness. When Victim again recovered consciousness, she was crying and unable to breathe. Madrigal retrieved a knife and held it against Victim's back, threatening to kill her if she did not stop crying. After Madrigal took Victim into the bathroom, she was able to break free and run outside to seek help. When Victim reached a neighbor's house and called for help, Madrigal left the area.
Sheriff's Deputy Keith Crowley ("Deputy Crowley") responded to the scene. Deputy Crowley saw that Victim appeared oriented but disheveled and frightened, had a shaky voice, and had redness around the front of her throat as well as a "fat lip." Deputy Crowley took photographs of Victim's injuries, which included red marks on her cheek, a cut, a bruised lip
, and bruising to her neck and throat. Deputy Crowley offered Victim medical care, which Victim declined, stating she would see her own physician. Deputy Crowley did not believe it was necessary to call for paramedics.
Victim filed for a restraining order against Madrigal so that he would not be able to return to Mother's house. Victim told Mother that Madrigal attacked her and tried to kill her. When Mother, a registered nurse, returned home that evening, she observed that Victim was distraught and shaking, had red marks on her neck, broken blood vessels in her face and jaw, and petechiae
in her cheeks. Mother drove Victim to the hospital. Mother noticed Victim was swallowing a lot, which she believed was consistent with Victim having trouble with her throat.
Mary Bordner ("Nurse Bordner"), a nurse practitioner, treated Victim at the emergency room. Victim reported general soreness, pain, and bruising in multiple areas, including her chest, knees, lower back, and neck. Nurse Bordner observed that Victim was stable but a little distressed and had a swollen face with lip abrasions and bruising on her throat. Nurse Bordner was concerned Victim may have had more severe internal injuries and ordered several screening tests, including a chest x-ray
and CTs of Victim's head, cervical spine, lower back, and knees. The hospital discharged Victim later that night after the test results did not indicate hospital admission was necessary.
The State charged Madrigal with first-degree domestic assault, second-degree domestic assault, first-degree harassment, armed criminal action, and first-degree tampering. While in custody, Madrigal called Victim and tried to get her to have the charges against him dismissed. The State then charged Madrigal with an additional count of tampering with a victim.
Prior to trial, the State gave notice of its intent to introduce several pieces of prior bad act evidence. Madrigal opposed the admission of such evidence as being improper propensity evidence that was not relevant to the issues in the case. The parties argued their respective positions on the admissibility of the prior bad act evidence, including how the relevance of certain issues may depend on defense counsel's cross-examination. The trial court deferred its evidentiary ruling until after Madrigal cross-examined Victim.
The case proceeded to trial. During his cross-examination of Victim, Madrigal asked about the phone calls he placed to Victim from jail and whether Victim could have refused his calls. The trial court then revisited the State's request to introduce the prior bad act evidence. Over Madrigal's objections, the trial court allowed the State to introduce during its redirect examination of Victim, a voicemail Madrigal left on Victim's phone (the "Voicemail") and testimony about a prior strangling episode (the "Seatbelt Incident").
The Voicemail was a message left by Madrigal on Victim's phone one month before the April 5 incident. In the message, Madrigal cursed at Victim and threatened that if she did not answer his calls, he would go to the Division of Family Services ("DFS") about her children, go by her job, and generally ruin her life, saying, "If you don't want me to ruin your [ ] life [ ], answer the [ ] phone."
The Seatbelt Incident occurred the day before the April 5 incident. While Madrigal and Victim were in the car, Madrigal acted erratically, yelled at Victim, and tried to take her purse. Madrigal wrapped the seatbelt around Victim's throat and strangled her. Madrigal told Victim he would kill her if she tried to end their relationship.
The State called Kathryn Howard ("Nurse Howard") as an expert witness in forensic nursing with specialized training concerning the effects of strangulation. Nurse Howard testified that strangulation can cause death. Specifically, Nurse Howard explained that strangulation blocks blood flow to the brain and deprives the brain of oxygen. Brain cells begin to die after ten seconds of oxygen deprivation and do not regenerate. A person being strangled may lose consciousness at ten to fifteen seconds, bladder control at fifteen to twenty seconds, and bowel control at thirty seconds. Brain death due to lack of oxygen occurs, on average, after one to two minutes of sustained pressure. The amount of pressure required to cut off blood flow is about half the amount of pressure required to open a soda can.
Nurse Howard testified that strangulation often leaves no visible injuries because a person may lose consciousness and go limp with a minimal amount of pressure within a short amount of time. Nurse Howard differentiated the terms choking and strangulation, explaining that choking is when something occurs internally within the body that obstructs the airway, whereas strangulation occurs when a force external to the body blocks the airway. Nurse Howard testified at length about the medical consequences of strangulation. For instance, she explained that sixty-two percent of strangulation victims have no visible injuries on the neck because a person generally loses consciousness and goes limp in ten to fifteen seconds. She noted that repeated strangulations increase the amount of brain damage inflicted and may leave scratches and bruises. Strangulation commonly causes rupturing of the blood vessels resulting in petechiae
, which are pinpoint red dots that may appear on the scalp, behind the ears, on the neck, and in the eye. When petechiae exist on the face, they also exist on the brain, and are visible in postmortem pictures as dots on the brain where it is bleeding. Strangulation increases the risk of twenty-five different conditions, including delayed death, behavior changes, seizures, thyroid disorders, delayed stroke, permanent neck injuries, permanent hoarseness, difficulty...
To continue reading
Request your trial