State v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 18 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 110,976.,110,976. |
| Citation | 362 P.3d 587 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Marquis J. MARSHALL, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Sarah Ellen Johnson, of Capital Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, were with her on the brief for appellee.
Marquis Marshall was convicted of capital murder in connection with the November 2012 slayings of Zachary Hunt and Henry Harvey inside a Wichita Dollar General store. The district court imposed a sentence of lifetime imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
On appeal, Marshall does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial. But he raises four arguments for why his capital murder conviction cannot stand: (1) The district court erred when it failed to order a competency evaluation; (2) the district court erred when it failed to sufficiently inquire into Marshall's requests for new counsel; (3) the district court judge erred when he allegedly misspoke during his reading of the instructions to the jury; and (4) the cumulative effect of these errors deprived Marshall of a fair trial. Finding no merit with any of these arguments, we affirm Marshall's conviction.
The evidence presented at Marshall's trial established that shortly after 8 p.m. on November 30, 2012, he entered a Wichita Dollar General store and proceeded to walk down an aisle. At the time, Hunt, an employee of the store, was at the cash register tallying up customer Harvey's purchases. A few seconds later, Marshall emerged from the aisle holding a .22 caliber pistol. He walked to the front of the store and fired three shots into Hunt's body and then three shots into Harvey's back, killing both men. In a rush to flee, Marshall attempted to exit the store by first pushing against the store's inwardly-swinging entrance door with his bare palm. He quickly realized his error and escaped through the store's designated exit. The entire incident—from Marshall's entry to his eventual flight from the store—lasted less than 1 minute.
A store employee who was in the storage room during the shooting eventually called 911. Law enforcement quickly arrived at the scene and reviewed the video captured on the store's surveillance system. Though the resolution of the video was too poor to yield any specific details (aside from gender) regarding the shooter, it showed the particular location on the entry door where the shooter had placed his palm as he attempted his exit through the door. A crime scene investigator inspected that area of the door and found a palm print. The print was lifted from the door and transferred to the crime lab for immediate testing. A latent print examiner determined that the print matched a known print of Marshall's contained within a database.
Notably, footage from inside the store showed a store employee wiping down the inside of the entry door a few hours before the shooting, thus eliminating or greatly reducing the possibility that Marshall's print was left on the door during an earlier visit to the store.
On December 2, 2012, Marshall was arrested during a traffic stop. He was taken to the police station where he was questioned by detectives. After answering a few biographical questions, Marshall was advised of and waived his Miranda rights, agreeing to speak with the detectives. During the interview, the detectives showed Marshall a picture of the shooter placing his hand on the entry door and told Marshall that his fingerprints had been found on that area of the door. In response, Marshall said, " ‘Obviously.’ " Though Marshall denied being at the store during the time of the shootings, he told the detectives, " ‘I never expect myself to kill anybody.’ " When the discussion turned to what gun the shooter used, Marshall asked whether the gun was a .22 before officers could mention that fact. Throughout the interview, Marshall had no trouble understanding and answering the detectives' questions. Marshall eventually asked for a lawyer, causing the detectives to end the interview and leave the interrogation room.
While Marshall was alone in the room, a police officer monitored video and audio footage of the room. During this time, the officer heard Marshall make several statements to himself. According to the officer, who took notes at the time, Marshall made the following statements:
On December 5, 2012, Marshall was charged with one count of capital murder. On April 2, 2013, he filed a pro se motion under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60–1501, seeking termination of defense counsel. Marshall alleged that the request was based on counsel's lack of performance and "a conflict of breakdown communication." Marshall also alleged that counsel had engaged in unethical behavior based on his refusal to communicate with Marshall regarding continuances or to provide him information on a death penalty defense. Marshall also alleged that he had only spoken to defense counsel one time since his confinement in the Sedgwick County Jail.
Prior to Marshall's preliminary hearing on May 2, 2013, the district court addressed Marshall's motion, advising him that his "motion or petition for ineffective assistance" was likely premature given the early stage of his case. The district court then asked Marshall whether he desired to proceed with the motion to have counsel dismissed. Marshall declined, saying he wanted to withdraw the motion and proceed with defense counsel.
In July 2013, Marshall filed two pro se motions. The first motion requested that he be sent to Larned State Hospital for an evaluation. In support of this motion, Marshall noted that he had been previously sent to Larned, had taken "meds for mental problems" in the past, and was seen by a doctor while at Larned. The second motion requested that his counsel be dismissed for ineffective assistance based on "(1) lack of communication[,] (2) irreconcilable differences[,] and (3) conflict of interest." Marshall did not provide any factual allegations to support his assertions.
On August 27, 2013, a hearing was held to address the two motions. When asked what the basis was for his motion to dismiss defense counsel, Marshall was vague, saying that he did not think defense counsel had done anything for him and that defense counsel was "not communicating with my family, not telling me things I need to know, that he needs to tell me." The district court asked Marshall to provide a legal basis for removing defense counsel. Marshall responded that he did not know "exactly what to say." The district court denied the motion after Marshall conceded that there was no basis for his motion. With regard to Marshall's request to be sent to Larned for an evaluation, Marshall told the court that he did not write the motion himself and that he did not "even know what Larned is exactly." In response, the district court denied that motion as well.
In September 2013, Marshall began refusing to visit with defense counsel. (According to comments made by the prosecutor at a September 25 hearing, prior to Marshall's refusal to see his attorney, defense counsel had visited Marshall 20 to 25 times.) Marshall also refused clothes that defense counsel had brought to him to wear during his trial. The district court conducted a hearing on the matter on September 25. When Marshall was asked why he was refusing to meet with his attorney, he said, "Me and my lawyer ain't seeing eye to eye." When asked to elaborate, Marshall said he did not think defense counsel was "working for me to the best of his abilities." The district court asked Marshall what he expected defense counsel to do prior to the start of trial on September 30. Marshall replied, "I didn't say I expect him to do anything." After the district court judge advised Marshall that trial would not be delayed due to his refusal to meet with defense counsel and that he would be forced to wear his jail-issued jumpsuit if he refused the clothes that defense counsel had offered to him, Marshall told the court that he would meet with his attorney and that he would wear the clothes.
Later at the hearing, the district court asked defense counsel whether there was anything he wanted to put on the record. Defense counsel stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial