State v. Reese
| Citation | 632 S.W.3d 365 |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | WD 83362 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Danzel REESE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Julia E. Rives, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.
Kent E. Gipson, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.
Before Division One: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding Judge, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge, Thomas N. Chapman, Judge
Danzel Reese appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree under Section 565.024,1 and robbery in the first degree under Section 569.020. Reese contends the circuit court, 1) plainly erred in overruling Reese's motion to strike Venireperson #33, arguing Venireperson #33 was a biased juror, 2) erred in failing to order further jury deliberations and accepting the jury's verdict and sentencing Reese for robbery in the first degree, arguing the jury issued inconsistent verdicts, 3) erred in accepting the jury's verdict and sentencing Reese for robbery in the first degree in violation of Reese's right to be free from double jeopardy, 4) plainly erred in failing to sua sponte give a limiting instruction or declare a mistrial during the State's closing argument, arguing the State injected and argued facts not in evidence, and 5) plainly erred in submitting an erroneous verdict directing instruction for involuntary manslaughter in the first degree. We affirm.
Reese was charged by way of information on November 8, 2017, with one count of murder in the second degree for the shooting death of Lance Rutter, and one count of robbery in the first degree for, while acting alone or in concert with another, forcibly stealing a wallet from Christopher Chavez while Reese or another participant in the crime was armed with a deadly weapon. An amended information was filed on August 5, 2019, also charging Reese as a prior offender under Section 558.016. The case proceeded to jury trial on August 5, 2019. On August 8, 2019, the jury found Reese guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, and robbery in the first degree. On November 14, 2019, the court sentenced Reese to concurrent terms of seven years for involuntary manslaughter, and twenty years for the robbery. Reese does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Trial evidence will be discussed as necessary below to address Reese's points on appeal.
In his first point on appeal, Reese contends the circuit court plainly erred in overruling his motion to strike Venireperson #33. He contends he was denied a fair and impartial jury when Venireperson #33 was not struck as a juror, arguing that Venireperson #33 was unable to evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially. Reese contends that a manifest injustice resulted when he was found guilty by a jury that Venireperson #33 was part of.
Reese concedes that this issue was not included in his motion for new trial and is, therefore, unpreserved. He requests plain error review. "Issues that were not preserved may be reviewed for plain error only, which requires the reviewing court to find that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice has resulted from the trial court error." State v. Baumruk , 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo. banc 2009). "Review for plain error involves a two-step process." Id. "The first step requires a determination of whether the claim of error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
"If plain error is found, the court then must proceed to the second step and determine whether the claimed error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice." Id. ; See Rule 30.20. All prejudicial error is not plain error, "and plain errors are those which are evident, obvious and clear." Baumruk , 280 S.W.3d at 607 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Plain error review under Rule 30.20 is discretionary. State v. Brandolese , 601 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Mo. banc 2020). The appellant bears the burden of facially establishing substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has occurred. Id. Without this showing, an appellate court should decline plain error review. Id.
‘The critical question in a bias challenge is whether the venireperson unequivocally indicated an ability to evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially’ State v. Clark , 55 S.W.3d 398, 404 (Mo. App. 2001) (citation omitted). Where a potential juror equivocates about his or her ability to be fair and impartial, a trial court has a duty to make an independent inquiry. Id. ; State v. Wheat , 775 S.W.2d 155, 158 (Mo. banc 1989) (trial court's duty of independent inquiry arises only where a venireperson equivocates about ability to be fair and impartial). ‘Where a venireperson's answer suggests a possibility of bias, but upon further questioning that person gives unequivocal assurances of impartiality, the bare possibility of prejudice will not disqualify such rehabilitated juror nor deprive the trial court of discretion to seat such venireperson.’ State v. Bishop , 942 S.W.2d 945, 949 (Mo. App. 1997). Nonetheless, ‘[w]here a juror gives equivocal answers which reveal uncertainty as to his ability to be impartial, the absence of independent examination by a trial judge justifies a more searching review by an appellate court of the challenged juror's qualifications.’ State v. Roark , 784 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Mo. App. 1989).
State v. Clark-Ramsey , 88 S.W.3d 484, 488-489 (Mo. App. 2002).
The qualifications of a prospective juror are not determined conclusively by a single response, but are made on the basis of the entire examination. The trial court is in the best position to evaluate a venireperson's commitment to follow the law and is vested with broad discretion in determining the qualifications of prospective jurors. The ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly against the evidence and is a clear abuse of discretion.
Id. at 486 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here, during voir dire for Reese's trial, the prospective jurors were asked by the State if anyone or someone close to them had been a victim of a violent crime, including robbery and murder. Venireperson #33 stated that approximately five years prior, her daughter's boyfriend was murdered during a robbery in Oklahoma. Venireperson #33 and all other jurors who responded that they or someone close to them had been impacted by a violent crime were asked to raise their number card if they believed these prior events would affect their ability to be fair in Reese's case, or if they were not confident they could be "fair and impartial and put aside whatever their experiences were with their own victimization or the victimization of somebody close to them." Venireperson #33 did not raise her card, thereby indicating that she was confident that she could be fair and impartial in Reese's case. Venireperson #33 also indicated during voir dire that she presumed Reese was innocent of the crimes for which he was charged.
During defense counsel's examination of potential jurors, the following colloquy took place between defense counsel and Venireperson #33:
At the close of voir dire , the parties requested that various potential jurors be struck for cause. The defense requested that Venireperson #33...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robertson
...State v. Martin, 103 S.W.3d 255, 264 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (quoting State v. Storey, 40 S.W.3d 898, 910 (Mo. banc 2001)); see Reese, 632 S.W.3d at 378 (quoting Edwards, S.W.3d at 536-37). "The burden is on the defendant to prove the decisive significance." State v. Biggs, 170 S.W.3d 498, 506......
-
State v. Gannan
... ... circumstances that could be explained by trial ... strategy. [ 7 ] Accordingly, we will review Gannan's ... unpreserved claims of instructional error for plain error ... Review ... for plain error is a two-step process. State v ... Reese , 632 S.W.3d 365, 370 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) ... "[F]irst, we must determine whether the trial court ... committed evident, obvious, and clear error affecting the ... defendant's substantial rights; second, if plain error is ... found, we then consider whether the error ... ...
- State v. R.J.G.