State v. Pearce
| Decision Date | 17 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 122,961,122,961 |
| Citation | 500 P.3d 528 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael J. PEARCE Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Michelle A. Davis, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause, and was on the brief for appellant.
Jason A. Vigil, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Elizabeth H. Sweeney-Reeder, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.
This is Michael J. Pearce's direct appeal following his convictions for first-degree felony murder, criminal threat, and distribution of methamphetamine. Pearce challenges his felony-murder conviction, arguing that the State failed to establish a direct causal connection between his involvement in distributing drugs and the death of the victim. But contrary to Pearce's argument, there was no extraordinary intervening event that worked to sever the causal connection between the victim's death and Pearce's participation in the underlying felony of methamphetamine distribution. Pearce also argues the district court violated his common-law right to a jury trial under section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights by making judicial findings of his prior convictions to establish his sentence. But we recently rejected the same section 5 challenge to criminal history in State v. Albano , 313 Kan. 638, Syl. ¶ 4, 487 P.3d 750 (2021). For these reasons, we affirm Pearce's conviction and sentence.
In the early morning hours of July 21, 2017, law enforcement was dispatched to the area of 311th Street and Lookout Road, a two-lane gravel road in Miami County between Osawatomie and Paola. Upon arrival, law enforcement discovered the body of Heather Briggs trapped underneath an SUV. Law enforcement contacted two individuals there: David Rhoades, who was trying to lift up the SUV, and Nichole Razo, who was frantic and crying hysterically. Law enforcement later spoke with Curtis Cooley, who was walking nearby. Briggs was pronounced dead at the scene.
During the investigation, law enforcement identified and interviewed several other witnesses and discovered that Briggs' death occurred during a drug deal. Razo arranged through Cooley to purchase 7 grams of methamphetamine from Rhoades for $200. Razo and Rhoades agreed to meet on Lookout Road. Razo drove there in her SUV with Cooley, Seth Herron, and Kevin Stevens. April Lunsford drove another vehicle with Rhoades, Briggs, and Pearce as passengers. Upon arrival, Rhoades met with Razo and they exchanged the drugs and cash. A dispute then arose when both groups discovered they had received a lesser amount of drugs and money than agreed upon. Briggs and Pearce exited Lunsford's vehicle and argued with Razo through the driver's window of the SUV. The argument appeared to be resolved when Razo returned the drugs to Pearce, and he gave back her money. Razo then drove away, running over Briggs in the process. Lunsford called 911 and left the area with Pearce. Rhoades and Razo stayed and tried to lift the SUV off Briggs. Cooley, Stevens, and Herron ran from the scene; Cooley later returned after the emergency vehicles arrived.
The State filed charges against all of the above individuals for their involvement in the events leading to Briggs' death. All but Stevens entered into plea agreements with the State that required them to testify against Pearce, who was charged with one count each of first-degree felony murder based on the underlying felony of distribution of methamphetamine, aggravated assault, criminal threat, and distribution of methamphetamine.
At Pearce's jury trial, the witnesses each testified about their recollection of the moments before Briggs' death. Herron testified that when the argument about the drugs and money broke out, Pearce pulled out a gun and waved it at Razo, stating: " ‘If the money doesn't show, I'm going to shoot you guys.’ " Herron said that because of Pearce's threat, Razo drove off while Briggs was standing in front of the SUV. Herron claimed that as Razo drove away, he heard three gunshots. On cross-examination, Herron testified that shortly before Razo drove off, Razo told Briggs, " ‘Bitch, I'll run you over.’ " But Herron maintained that Razo left because she was scared when Pearce pulled out the gun and that she was trying to get away.
Razo testified that when Pearce approached her vehicle and returned her money in exchange for the methamphetamine, he directed Briggs to weigh the drugs. Razo claimed that Pearce said, " ‘Don't mess with me; if my dope is short, I will shoot you.’ " When asked whether Pearce made any movements like he had a gun, Razo said, "He was going underneath his shirt, but I didn't wait to find out if he had a gun or not." According to Razo, she told her passengers to put their heads down and "took off," only stopping after realizing that she had hit Briggs. Razo testified that she did not mean to run over Briggs and claimed that she only drove off because Pearce threatened to shoot up the car. Razo denied she threatened to run over Briggs.
Cooley testified that shortly before Razo ran over Briggs, he heard Pearce tell Razo, " ‘Don't do anything stupid, or I'll shoot the car up.’ " Cooley said that everyone panicked after the SUV stopped, and that he ran from the scene because he was afraid Pearce might start shooting.
Rhoades first testified that he did not see Pearce with a gun or make any movements suggesting that he had a gun. Rhoades also denied hearing any gunshots and denied that Pearce had been involved in the drug transaction. Rhoades claimed that the sound the other witnesses had identified as gunshots was actually the sound of him hitting the back of Razo's SUV with nunchucks to get her to stop. Rhoades later admitted that when Pearce exited Lunsford's vehicle, Pearce said, " ‘I got this,’ " and grabbed his pants as though he might have a gun.
Lunsford testified that she did not see Pearce with a gun and that she never heard gunshots or saw anyone fire a weapon. According to Lunsford, Razo later admitted that she never saw a gun, but she thought Pearce was reaching for one. Lunsford denied that Pearce was involved in the drug deal or that he acted as an enforcer to the transaction.
Stevens, who had declined the State's plea offer and was found not guilty of criminal charges arising from Briggs' death, testified for the defense. Stevens testified that he was asleep in Razo's vehicle and woke up to her arguing with Briggs. Stevens said that Briggs beat on Razo's vehicle and told Razo to come out and fight her. Stevens claimed that as Briggs walked away, Razo "hit the gas," steered her car toward Briggs, and ended up hitting her. Stevens denied seeing Pearce at all during the incident and further denied seeing anyone with a gun, hearing anyone threaten to shoot the car, or hearing gunshots. On cross-examination, the prosecutor impeached Stevens with his prior testimony from his jury trial. There, Stevens testified that shortly before Razo ran over Briggs, he "heard someone say something about shooting up the car" and that he "heard a couple of loud bangs" that he thought came from a gun.
The jury found Pearce guilty of first-degree felony murder, distribution of methamphetamine, and criminal threat. The jury found him not guilty of aggravated assault. Based on the severity level of the crimes Pearce committed and his criminal history, the district court imposed a controlling sentence of 130 months plus life in prison.
Pearce filed this timely appeal.
Pearce raises two arguments on appeal. First, he argues the State failed to prove the causation required to establish his guilt for felony murder. Second, Pearce argues the use of his prior convictions to determine his sentence violated his jury trial rights under section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. We address each argument in turn.
Pearce challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his felony-murder conviction, arguing that the State failed to prove a sufficient causal connection between his participation in the distribution of methamphetamine and Briggs' death.
At the outset, the parties disagree on the applicable standard of review. Citing State v. Sophophone , 270 Kan. 703, 704-06, 19 P.3d 70 (2001), Pearce claims that whether a defendant is subject to the felony-murder rule based on the causal relationship between the underlying felony and a victim's death is a question of law that is subject to unlimited review. But the State correctly points out that Sophophone addressed the specific legal issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of felony murder "for the killing of a co-felon not caused by his acts but by the lawful acts of a police officer acting in self-defense." See 270 Kan. at 705, 19 P.3d 70. Here, there is no similar question of law before us because Pearce does not allege that Briggs' death resulted from a lawful act by a third party. See 270 Kan. at 706, 19 P.3d 70 (). Instead, the standard of review for determining whether there is a causal connection between the underlying felony of distribution of methamphetamine and Briggs' death requires us to examine the sufficiency of the evidence. See State v. Beach , 275 Kan. 603, 611, 67 P.3d 121 (2003). The applicable standard of review is well known:
" " State v. Colson , 312 Kan. 739,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Valdez
...court does not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or pass on the credibility of witnesses.’ " State v. Pearce , 314 Kan. 475, 480, 500 P.3d 528 (2021). Applying this standard to the evidence before Valdez' jury, a rational fact-finder could not have concluded all the eleme......
-
State v. Harpe
... ... appeal. See State v. Green , 315 Kan. 178, 182, 505 ... P.3d 377 (2022). Constitutional grounds for reversal asserted ... for the first time on appeal are not properly before the ... appellate court for review. State v. Pearce , 314 ... Kan. 475, 484, 500 P.3d 528 (2021) ... There ... are several exceptions to the general rule that a new legal ... theory may not be asserted for the first time on appeal, ... including the following: (1) The newly asserted theory ... ...
-
State v. Richmond
... ... a Brady violation. Once again, Richmond failed to ... assert this violation to the district court. Generally, ... constitutional grounds for reversal asserted for the first ... time on appeal are not properly before this court for review ... State v. Pearce, 314 Kan. 475, 484, 500 P.3d 528 ... (2021). However, there are three recognized exceptions to ... this general prohibition: ... "'(1) [T]he newly asserted claim involves only a ... question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is ... finally determinative of ... ...
-
State v. Steinert
...the court determined punishment, which included the defendant's criminal history. 313 Kan. at 640-41.Similarly, in State v. Pearce , 314 Kan. 475, 484, 500 P.3d 528 (2021), the Kansas Supreme Court rejected Pearce's same section 5 argument:"Finding no authority to support the contention tha......