State v. Stafford

• Decision Date: 23 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 120,481,120,481
• Citation: 477 P.3d 1027
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Donnell STAFFORD, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

477 P.3d 1027

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Donnell STAFFORD, Appellant.

No. 120,481

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed December 23, 2020.

Kasper Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant.

Lance J. Gillett, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Stegall, J.:

Donnell Stafford directly appeals his premeditated first-degree murder and two cruelty to animals convictions. Stafford alleges the district court erred when it included additional language in his premeditation instruction, failed to instruct the jury on heat of passion voluntary manslaughter, admitted allegedly impermissible hearsay evidence, and claims cumulative error. Finding no error, we affirm the district court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Leuh Moore's body was found on April 8, 2018, in a dumpster behind two Wichita businesses. The dumpster also contained a bloody McDonald's employee polo shirt and a bloody black door mat draped over the body. Home security footage from the home behind the businesses depicted a Jeep Grand Cherokee enter the alleyway between the house and shops at approximately 4:33 a.m. A large male was seen in the footage carrying Moore's body from the SUV to the dumpster, removing a black mat, taking his shirt off, and placing those items in the dumpster. Someone found Moore's body later that afternoon. An autopsy revealed fatal stab wounds to Moore's neck, evidence of strangulation, sharp force injuries to Moore's head and neck, and incised wounds

to fingers on Moore's left hand.

Moore owned a 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee. She had previously obtained protection orders against Stafford. The protection from abuse orders alleged Stafford strangled Moore, placed a knife to her throat, and threatened to kill her. Stafford worked at McDonald's until the week or two before Moore's death.

In the front yard of Moore's duplex police found blood, a bloody women's shirt, and blood on the front porch railing and front door. They observed a visible outline from a missing doormat in front of the door. Clumps of hair dotted the living room floor and blood was present throughout the living room and kitchen. Two pit bull dogs sat in stacked cages, were covered in blood, and suffered stab wounds to their bodies. A third pit bull roamed the house unharmed. The bedroom contained more blood and a cut mattress with several visible handprints. A wooden-handled serrated blade knife lay on the nightstand.

Investigators tracked Stafford to Nebraska, and then to Davenport, Iowa, using his cell phone. Iowa authorities arrested Stafford at a motel with Moore's stolen Jeep Grand Cherokee, which contained blood. A pawn shop receipt showed Stafford pawned a television on April 8, 2018, for money shortly after Moore's death.

The Iowa intake officer asked Stafford if he was married. Stafford smirked, paused, and asked the officer if he had his file. The officer replied he did not. Stafford told the intake officer "he had killed his wife in Wichita, which is why he was under arrest in Davenport" and added he is "usually a very laid-back guy" and "likes to read his Bible," but "didn't know why he did it, he just snapped."

At trial, Moore's son, I.M., testified he woke up the night of April 7 to the dogs fighting. Stafford told I.M. to go back to sleep, and I.M. did. Stafford later took I.M. to I.M.'s grandmother's house, and as Stafford led I.M. from the house, I.M. saw a "lot of blood." I.M. also described domestic violence between "Donterio," who I.M. identified as Stafford, and Moore. Donterio is Stafford's middle name. I.M.'s grandmother explained that Stafford brought I.M. over around 7:30 a.m. on April 8, 2018. Stafford told I.M.'s grandmother he had to work and would pick I.M. up around 4:00 p.m., but never returned.

Dr. Tiffany Warren, a forensic nurse, testified she met with Moore on May 23, 2017, after Stafford assaulted Moore. Dr. Warren testified Moore told her Stafford slapped, choked, hit her, sat on top of her, and threatened to kill her on several occasions. Moore passed out several times from being choked and Stafford used a jagged edged knife during one of the altercations. Dr. Warren's testimony included direct quotes from Moore.

The State admitted an email chain between Stafford and Moore from May 27, 2017, to June 20, 2017, while Stafford was in jail. Stafford and Moore argued about money and the poor status of their marriage. Stafford also warned she was " ‘still going to get [hers]’ " and accused Moore of "sleeping around."

A jury convicted Stafford of first-degree murder and two counts of cruelty to animals. See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5402(a)(1) ; K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6412(a)(1), (b)(1). The district court sentenced Stafford to a hard 50 sentence for the murder conviction and two concurrent 12-month sentences for the animal cruelty convictions. Stafford directly appeals.

DISCUSSION

Stafford raises four claims of error. He argues (1) the district court erred when it expanded the standard premeditation PIK instruction; (2) the district court failed to instruct the jury on heat of passion voluntary manslaughter; (3) the district court impermissibly admitted hearsay evidence; and (4) cumulative error. Finding no error, we affirm.

The district court did not err when it included additional language in the premeditation instruction.

Stafford claims the district court erred when it included several additional paragraphs in the standard premeditation PIK instruction. The jury received jury instruction No. 9, which provided the elements for first-degree murder and defined premeditation, including the italicized additional language:

"Premeditation means to have thought the matter over beforehand, in other words, to have formed the design or intent to kill before the act. Although there is no specific time period required for premeditation, the concept of premeditation requires more than the instantaneous intentional act of taking another's life.

"Premeditation is the process of thinking about a proposed killing before engaging in homicidal conduct.

"Premeditation does not have to be present before a fight, quarrel, or struggle begins. Premeditation is the time of reflection or deliberation. Premeditation does not necessarily mean that an act is planned, contrived or schemed beforehand.

"Premeditation can be inferred from other circumstances including: (1) the nature of the weapon used, (2) the lack of provocation, (3) the defendant's conduct before and after the killing, (4) threats and declarations of the defendant before and during the occurrence, or (5) dealing of lethal blows after the deceased was felled and rendered helpless.

"Premeditation can occur during the middle of a violent episode, struggle or fight. " (Emphasis added.)

Stafford recognizes this instruction is cut straight from State v. Bernhardt , 304 Kan. 460, 464-65, 472, 372 P.3d 1161 (2016), in which we upheld the same language. Stafford distinguishes Bernhardt by pointing out that the Bernhardt victim died from a series of blows inflicted over a long time period—warranting a clarification in the PIK. Stafford argues a single injury—a knife wound to the neck—caused Moore's death, so clarification was unnecessary.

Stafford believes this court should adopt Chief Justice Luckert's or Justice Johnson's dissenting opinion in Bernhardt arguing the paragraphs are confusing and therefore legally inappropriate. See 304 Kan. at 483-89, 372 P.3d 1161 (Johnson, J., dissenting); 304 Kan. at 489, 372 P.3d 1161 (Luckert, J., dissenting). He concludes the State cannot show the error was harmless because trial evidence suggested Moore's killing was not premeditated. Stafford directs us to his law enforcement interview where he said "he just snapped."

"When analyzing jury instruction issues, we follow a three-step process: ‘(1) determining whether the appellate court can or should review the issue, i.e. , whether there is a lack of appellate jurisdiction or a failure to preserve the issue for appeal; (2) considering the merits of the claim to determine whether error occurred below; and (3) assessing whether the error requires reversal, i.e. , whether the error can be deemed harmless.’ " State v. McLinn , 307 Kan. 307, 317, 409 P.3d 1 (2018).

Whether a party has preserved a jury instruction issue affects our reversibility inquiry at the third step. 307 Kan. at 317, 409 P.3d 1 ; see K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3414(3) ("No party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction ... unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict ... unless the instruction or the failure to give an instruction is clearly erroneous."). At the second step, we consider whether the instruction was legally and factually appropriate. 307 Kan. at 318, 409 P.3d 1. Appellate courts use unlimited review to determine whether an instruction was legally appropriate. State v. Johnson , 304 Kan. 924, 931, 376 P.3d 70 (2016). Courts must determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instruction. State v. Williams , 303 Kan. 585, 598-99, 363 P.3d 1101 (2016). We do not consider "whether ... an instruction would have been factually appropriate" if the instruction is not legally appropriate. State v. Broxton , 311 Kan. 357, 363, 461 P.3d 54 (2020) (refusing to reach factual appropriateness after finding an instruction was not legally appropriate).

Stafford objected to the instruction below, so any error is reversible if there is a reasonable probability the error affected the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record. State v. Louis , 305 Kan. 453, 457-58, 384 P.3d 1 (2016).

We hold the instruction was legally appropriate. As Stafford admits, the instruction's language is pulled straight from Bernhardt . The Bernhardt court...