State v. Peal
Decision Date | 19 March 2013 |
Docket Number | No. WD 74527.,WD 74527. |
Citation | 393 S.W.3d 621 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Darris Arlando PEAL, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jessica P. Meredith, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Emmett D. Queener, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Before Division Three: CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, Presiding Judge, JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge and GARY D. WITT, Judge.
Darris Peal (“Peal”) appeals from the trial court's judgment convicting him of second degree (felony) murder after a jury trial. Peal claims that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce: (1) a video recording of Peal extracted from Peal's cell phone, (2) evidence that Peal was unemployed, and (3) a photo display of booking photographs of Peal and others with whom he was alleged to have acted in concert, because all of the aforesaid evidence had no relevance other than to improperly show Peal's propensity to commit the crimes with which he was charged. We affirm.
On October 22, 2010, Aaron Hobson (“Hobson”) and five friends including Floyd Morgan (“Morgan”) traveled from Kansas City to Columbia to watch Hobson's cousin play a University of Missouri football game. The group attended a party at the Peach Tree event center. Hobson drove with Morgan to the Peach Tree in his vehicle, a black Impala with “Lamborghini” doors that opened vertically and large 24–inch rims. During the party, Hobson was flashing money.
After the party, Hobson and Morgan drove around the Peach Tree parking lot “stunting,” which consisted of driving around with the car doors up and flashing money in order to get attention. At some point, Hobson's group got separated, and planned by cell phone to meet at a nearby Break Time gas station.
At approximately 1:15 a.m., Hobson and Morgan pulled into the busy Break Time parking lot. As Hobson entered the lot, the doors to his vehicle were up. Hobson had money in his hand. A group of men rushed the driver's side of Hobson's vehicle. One of the men pointed a gun at Hobson. Hobson threw the money at Morgan. Morgan fell out of the vehicle and ran. Hobson was pulled out of his vehicle and held with a gun to his head at the back of his vehicle. Some of the men collected the money falling out the side of his vehicle, and others beat Hobson and went through his pockets. Eventually, Hobson got back into his vehicle. Someone in the group of men yelled, “Shoot the n* * * * *.” Gunshots were fired, and everyone fled. Hobson's vehicle rolled up on to the curb and came to a stop. Hobson's friends returned to Hobson's vehicle and found Hobson slumped over and semi-conscious. When the police arrived, Hobson no longer had a pulse. Hobson was transported to the hospital where he was declared dead from two gunshot wounds.
A police search of Hobson's vehicle revealed $374 cash in the glove box. No weapons were found. At the scene, police collected two spent shell casings and a bullet fragment. A .22 caliber pistol was found in the parking lot of a business behind Break Time. The following day, the police collected two more spent shell casings from a nearby business. The police later obtained surveillance video of the Break Time parking lot. Peal was identified in the video.
On October 23, 2010, a complaint was filed against Peal. On October 27, 2010, Peal was arrested in Jennings, Missouri. Once in custody, Peal gave a videotaped statement to Columbia Police Detective Joseph Jackson (“Detective Jackson”). Detective Jackson testified that Peal told him he had gone to the party at Peach Tree on October 22, 2010, but never went into the party. Peal also told him that he then went to Break Time. Peal admitted that he was involved in the altercation at Hobson's vehicle, but claimed he was only protecting his nephew, Patrick Marshall. Peal told Detective Jackson he did not know, or barely knew, most of the men identified in the surveillance video as involved in the altercation 2 with Hobson. Peal denied seeing a gun during the altercation. Peal denied owning a cell phone.
A vehicle associated with Peal was towed for processing. The vehicle inventory resulted in the discovery of two cell phones with the numbers 573–356–9785 and 573–356–9786, and identification and receipts with Peal's name and contact information including the phone number 573–356–9786. On October 28, 2010, Deputy Dustin Richards booked Peal into the Boone County jail. At that time, Peal reported his phone number to be 573–356–9786.
On December 2, 2010, the gun used to shoot Hobson was recovered from Jerel Bryant, one of the men identified in the video surveillance tape. The gun was matched to the spent shell casings and bullet fragment obtained from the Break Time parking lot, to the bullet retrieved from Hobson's body, and to the spent shell casings found on the nearby business parking lot.
On June 24, 2011, Peal was indicted as a persistent misdemeanor offender 3 with two alternative counts of the class A felony of second degree (felony) murder.4 As to count one, it was alleged that Hobson was killed by Peal acting in concert with another as a result of immediate flight from perpetration of the class B felony of robbery in the second degree. As to count two, it was alleged that Hobson was killed by Peal acting in concert with another as a result of immediate flight from perpetration of the class C felony of felonious restraint.
Following a jury trial, Peal was found guilty of second degree (felony) murder with robbery in the second degree as the predicate felony offense. Peal was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Peal filed a motion for new trial which was denied.
Peal appeals.
“The standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.” State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008). “ ‘A trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence at trial.’ ” State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Mo. banc 2006) (citation omitted). “The trial judge is also in the best position to weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect.” State v. Oplinger, 193 S.W.3d 766, 770 (Mo.App. S.D.2006). Abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is “ ‘clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration.’ ” Freeman, 269 S.W.3d at 426 (citation omitted). “ ‘Reversal is warranted only if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial.’ ” State v. Tisius, 362 S.W.3d 398, 405 (Mo. banc 2012) (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.” Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 224.
For his first point on appeal, Peal alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce, over Peal's objection, a video recording of Peal extracted from Peal's cell phone (“the Video”). Peal claims the Video was inadmissible because it was improper character evidence relevant only to show his propensityto commit the crimes with which he was charged. We disagree.
The Video begins with the camera focused on over $200.00 cash displayed on a car seat which Peal sifts through with his fingers before he turns the camera on himself and says, Peal returns focus on the cash as he sifts through it again, picks it up, and lays it out on the seat. The Video depicts two other people sitting in the front seat of the vehicle as they are driving through traffic. Peal returns the camera to himself and says, The driver asks Peal who he is talking to and Peal answers, “The Get Money Team.” “Talking to the whole world, get money.”
On the second day of trial, out of the presence of the jury, Peal filed a motion in limine requesting that the State be barred from introducing character evidence that Peal is “very greedy and liked money to show he had a propensity to steal.” Peal's counsel asserted that based on the State's opening statement, he believed the State would be attempting to introduce the Video to demonstrate that Peal “had some sort of greedy character.... there were references made that he is jobless, that he is poor, that he has [a] greedy character, likes money.” 5 Peal's counsel, citing State v. Driscoll, 55 S.W.3d 350 (Mo. banc 2001), acknowledged that bad acts evidence is admissible to show motive, but argued that this evidence was purely character evidence with no relevant purpose but to show Peal's propensity to commit the crimes with which he was charged.6
The State argued that it intended to offer the Video to establish Peal's motive. The State argued that the evidence demonstrates Peal's obsession with money and thus his motive to rob Hobson. The State also argued that it should be given wide latitude in developing motive in light of Peal's statement to Detective Jackson that he did not know anything about the robbery.
The trial court denied Peal's motion in limine, and noted:
[L]et's say ... you demonstrate it's an obsession or whatever. That extreme behavior as to money, tied with this case where you've got somebody holding a huge wad of cash out a car window, would seem to tie in to show why the defendant may have reacted the way he did when he was in that circumstance at the convenience store.
....
I'll take it with the case. But I think that the issue of acting in concert that the State's trying to put forward, whether they do it successfully or not, who knows, is a subject of the video and thereby relevant. In other words, he is talking about a team, a Get Money Team, and he's with people that are purportedly on the parking lot at the same time he is when the homicide goes down.... But I'll certainly let you...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Swartz
...indicated.2 On appeal from a jury-tried case, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. State v. Peal, 393 S.W.3d 621, 623 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).3 Although Swartz and the State both cite to the transcript from the suppression hearing in support of their argumen......
-
State v. Young
...concur1 On appeal from a jury-tried case, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. State v. Peal , 393 S.W.3d 621, 623 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).2 All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 as updated through January 1, 2017.3 MAI-CR 4th 412.10.4 It is worth noting......
-
J.N.W. v. Officer
...in connection with admission of the police report, it is unlikely the objection would have been sustained.15 See State v. Peal , 393 S.W.3d 621, 631 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (holding that party cannot invite error in the admission of evidence and then claim trial court error in admission of the......
-
State v. Prince
...Article I, section 18(c). The passage of time alone will not render evidence inadmissible due to its remoteness. State v. Peal , 393 S.W.3d 621, 628-29 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).Second, Prince argues these crimes were not similar because his prior acts involved his six-year-old niece4 while the ......
-
Other evidence rules
...a crime occurred, the state could use extrinsic evidence to prove defendant had fabricated the information in the logs. State v. Peal, 393 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. App. 2013). In a felony murder prosecution predicated on death resulting from an armed robbery, admission of defendant’s self-made video......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...a crime occurred, the state could use extrinsic evidence to prove defendant had fabricated the information in the logs. State v. Peal, 393 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. App. 2013). In a felony murder prosecution predicated on death resulting from an armed robbery, admission of defendant’s self-made video......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...a crime occurred, the state could use extrinsic evidence to prove defendant had fabricated the information in the logs. State v. Peal, 393 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. App. 2013). In a felony murder prosecution predicated on death resulting from an armed robbery, admission of defendant’s self-made video......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...a crime occurred, the state could use extrinsic evidence to prove defendant had fabricated the information in the logs. State v. Peal, 393 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. App. 2013). In a felony murder prosecution predicated on death resulting from an armed robbery, admission of defendant’s self-made video......