State v. Mahurin

• Decision Date: 05 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. SD 36257,SD 36257
• Citation: 614 S.W.3d 571
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Matthew Scott MAHURIN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

614 S.W.3d 571

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Matthew Scott MAHURIN, Appellant.

No. SD 36257

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Filed: November 5, 2020

Motion for Rehearing and/or Application for Transfer Denied November 25, 2020

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 26, 2021

Appellant's Attorney: William J. Swift, of Columbia, Missouri.

Respondent's Attorneys: Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, and Richard A. Starnes, Assistant Attorney General, of Jefferson City, Missouri.

WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J.

Matthew Scott Mahurin("Mahurin") appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of one count of receiving stolen property.In four points on appeal, Mahurin argues: (1)the trial court abused its discretion and erred in overruling his hearsay and confrontation objections to the admission of Exhibit 7 (Department of Revenue records); (2) erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence and motion for new trial as the evidence did not prove that Mahurin retained the stolen property, as required under section 570.080;¹(3) abused its discretion in admitting Exhibit 7 in that it did not satisfy the business records admission requirements in section 490.692;² and (4) abused its discretion in admitting Exhibit 7 in that the legislature intended such records to be admissible in driving offense cases only.Finding no merit to any of Mahurin's points, we deny the same and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

We recite the evidence and the reasonable available inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict.State v. Lammers , 479 S.W.3d 624, 630(Mo. banc 2016).We recite other information as necessary for context.

Victim owned a 39-foot Puma camper trailer that he purchased for $12,500 in 2012, and which was worth between $8,000-$9,000 in 2019.He stored it at a Jasper County rental storage facility.

On the night of March 22, 2016, Mahurin stole Victim's camper trailer—specifically, Mahurin attached Victim's camper trailer to the rear of his own SUV and drove off.Victim's son-in-law saw what was happening and followed Mahurin (and the stolen camper trailer).Another bystander, along with Victim's son-in law, called police and alerted them to Mahurin's location.

Officer Jonathan White("Officer White") responded to the call.He was able to locate the camper trailer being pulled by Mahurin's black GMC Yukon, with Mahurin in the driver's seat of the Yukon, and initiated a traffic stop.

While Officer White gave (unheeded) commands for Mahurin to turn off the car, toss his keys out the window, and place his hands out the window, a passenger exited the vehicle, detached the camper trailer, got back in the SUV, and Mahurin sped off.

A high-speed chase ensued from Missouri into Oklahoma, back into Missouri, and then back into Oklahoma.Officer White lost sight of Mahurin's SUV after it went through a ditch and barbed wire fence, and then back the other direction onto a "little outer road[.]"

Officer White went down the outer road, joined by Oklahoma state police.Mahurin's SUV was located with its engine still running, the driver and passenger doors open, and barbed wire caught on the front grill and trailing behind the SUV.A K-9 unit tracked a scent from the SUV to a nearby mobile home.Police entered the mobile home and found two men, one of whom was Mahurin.At that time, Officer White identified Mahurin as the driver of the SUV.

Another officer found the vehicle identification number for the SUV, and it was searched.Inside were license plates for the SUV.Department of Revenue records showed that the SUV was registered to Mahurin.

Mahurin was charged by amended information, as a prior and persistent offender, with the class C felony of receiving stolen property, pursuant to section 570.080.

A jury trial commenced on June 6, 2019.Mahurin did not testify and presented no evidence in his defense.

At the beginning of trial, the State offered Exhibit 7, pursuant to section 302.312,³ which was comprised of records from the Department of Revenue regarding Mahurin's registration of the GMC Yukon.Mahurin objected to the admission of the records on the grounds of hearsay, that the certification of the document, pursuant to chapter 302, pertained only to offenses involving motor vehicles, watercraft and aviation, and that it violated his confrontation rights in that the documents were testimonial.The trial court overruled Mahurin's objection and admitted the records.

Mahurin was found guilty as charged.The trial court sentenced Mahurin, as a prior and persistent offender, to ten years in prison.

Mahurin filed a motion for new trial on July 2, 2019.The trial court overruled the motion on July 29, 2019.This appeal followed.

In four points relied on, Mahurin argues that:

1.The trial court"abused its discretion in overruling [defense]counsel's hearsay and confrontation objections to the admission of Exhibit 7[,]" because that exhibit was "Department of Revenue documents [that were] prohibited testimonial evidence under Crawford and March ";

2."The trial court erred in denying [Mahurin's]motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence, instructing the jury as provided for in InstructionNo. 5, denying the motion for new trial, and in imposing sentence," because "the evidence did not prove ... that [Mahurin]‘retained’ the camper trailer, as required under § 570.080andInstructionNo. 5, which was required to convict him of receiving stolen property[ ]";

3.The trial court"abused its discretion in overruling [defense]counsel's objections to Exhibit 7, the Department of Revenue records identifying [ ] Mahurin as the owner of the SUV recovered in the police chase," in that "Exhibit 7's certification affidavit under § 302.312 did not satisfy the business records admissions requirements under § 490.692 to allow its admission";

4.The trial court"abused its discretion in overruling [defense]counsel's objections to Exhibit 7, ... and in allowing it to be admitted based on § 302.312, ... in that the Legislature intended for such records to be admissible in driving offense cases only, and [Mahurin] was not charged with a driving offense."

For ease of analysis, we combine Mahurin's Points 3 and 4, infra.

Principles of Review

"The trial court has broad discretion to exclude or admit evidence at trial.This Court will reverse only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion."State v. Shockley , 410 S.W.3d 179, 195(Mo. banc 2013)."We further note that we review for prejudice, not mere error, and will reverse only if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial."State v. Bumbery , 492 S.W.3d 656, 665(Mo. App. S.D.2016)(internal quotation and citation omitted)."Trial court error is not prejudicial unless there is a reasonable probability that the trial court's error affected the outcome of the trial."Id.

Analysis

Point I: Exhibit 7 Was Not Inadmissible Hearsay or Testimonial Evidence⁴

Mahurin argues in his first point that the trial court"abused its discretion in overruling counsel's hearsay and confrontation objections to the admission of Exhibit 7[,]" because that exhibit was "Department of Revenue documents [that were] prohibited testimonial evidence under Crawford and March[.]"

We have reviewed Mahurin's Point I,⁵ his "Standard of Review"section,⁶ his "Preservation"section,⁷ and his argument section,⁸ and discern that it is not evident whether his single intended challenge is that: (1) Exhibit 7 was inadmissible hearsay, or that (2) Exhibit 7 was inadmissible testimonial evidence.To be clear, an appellant may assert one basis for reversal—inclusive of one distinct manner of inquiry and analysis—per point relied on.Beyond that, as here, the point is multifarious, and not preserved for our review.⁹

Nevertheless, ex gratiawe summarily (and, as applicable, curatively) address in turn what we discern to be the primary thrust of Mahurin's arguments as to Exhibit7—i.e , that it was (1) inadmissible hearsay, and (2) inadmissible testimonial evidence.¹⁰

"A hearsay statement is any out-of-court statement that is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that depends on the veracity of the statement for its value."State v. Brandolese , 601 S.W.3d 519, 534(Mo. banc 2020)(internal quotation and citation omitted).A hearsay claim, "to the extent ... preserved, will be analyzed for abuse of discretion."¹¹

A trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence during a criminal trial, and error occurs only when there is a clear abuse of this discretion.A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision to admit or exclude evidence is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so unreasonable and arbitrary that it shocks the sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful, deliberate consideration.This Court will reverse the trial court's decision only if there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial or deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

State v. Wood , 580 S.W.3d 566, 574(Mo. banc 2019)(internal quotations and citations omitted).

The record, as relevant here, reflects the following arguments preceding the trial court's now challenged admission of Exhibit 7:

[PROSECUTOR 1]: I believe that the law that I've handed to you states that this affidavit [for Exhibit 7] is valid.There is specific law that states that the DOR records are valid under that statute.Further, there is case law directly on point that states that it is valid and admissible at trial.

[PROSECUTOR 2]: I think the statute directly says copies of these signed [by] the appropriate custodian shall be admitted into evidence.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So, you're not offering them as business records; your offering them under [section] 302.312; is that correct?

[PROSECUTOR 1]: Yes.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well, are you

...