State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 14 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 36867,SD 36867 |
| Citation | 636 S.W.3d 630 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Richard Romel TAYLOR, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT – Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, MO.
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT – Nathan J. Aquino, Jefferson City, MO.
Richard Romel Taylor ("Taylor") appeals his convictions of two counts of murder in the second degree, two counts of assault in the first degree, and four counts of armed criminal action following a bench trial.1 Taylor raises two points on appeal. In his first point, Taylor argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and admitting the evidence "found as a result of the unlawful GPS search of [his van], including historical location data ostensibly tying him to the shootings, and the statement of [ ] a passenger in the [van] when it was finally stopped[.]" In his second point, he argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the identification made by David Reeves ("Reeves") and admitting Reeves’ in-court identification "because the identification was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive procedure[.]" Finding no merit in either point, we affirm.
We view the evidence presented and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Brown , 332 S.W.3d 282, 284 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011).
Following a bench trial, Taylor was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder for the shooting deaths of Sherry Gann ("Sherry") and Jonathan Graham ("Graham"), two counts of first-degree assault for shooting Cassandra Gann ("Cassandra") and David Reeves ("Reeves"), and four counts of armed criminal action.2
The following evidence was adduced at trial. Around 2:45 p.m. on January 11, 2018 in Pulaski County, a passerby discovered four individuals on Houston Road who had been shot. The individuals were Cassandra, Sherry, Graham, and Reeves. Sherry and Graham died from their injuries, but Cassandra and Reeves survived. Cassandra testified that Taylor was her drug dealer. She stated that she, Sherry, Graham and Reeves had confronted Taylor at his home the day before the shooting because Taylor had failed to deliver drugs they had purchased. The confrontation turned physical and Taylor eventually said he was "gonna make it right."
The next day, Taylor texted Cassandra to meet him on Houston Road, a spot where they had previously exchanged drugs.3 Cassandra, Sherry, Graham, and Reeves went to meet Taylor to get the drugs. Cassandra saw Taylor waiting there in a white SUV. Cassandra heard gunfire and woke up in the hospital where she identified the shooter as Taylor and told police where he lived.
Reeves was also interviewed at the hospital. He stated he had been in a fight with Taylor the day before.4 He had been with the other three victims who went to Houston Road. Reeves said he saw someone wearing a hoodie, whom he later identified as Taylor, reach into his waistband, pull out a gun and begin firing. Reeves was shot in the hand and played dead. A detective showed Reeves some photo lineups, which did not include Taylor, and Reeves did not identify anyone in those lineups. After the second photo lineup, Reeves told the detective, "[g]ive me a couple of days and I'll find out who did this." The next day, a detective showed Reeves another photo lineup which included Taylor. Reeves identified him immediately and initialed beside Taylor's picture.
Police began to search for Taylor who was not at his home. They determined Taylor and his girlfriend, Kaneisha Huff ("Huff"), owned a white Mazda van ("the van"), which was financed by J.D. Byrider ("Byrider") who was the lienholder on the van. According to Cassandra, Taylor's van was not the white SUV Taylor was in at the time of the shooting. Taylor had signed an agreement with Byrider allowing Byrider to place a GPS tracking device on the van that enabled Byrider to locate it at any time. Officers requested the GPS data. Byrider gave law enforcement the van's current location and a web link to track it.
Using the GPS tracking data, officers were able to locate and stop the van on I-44 in Sullivan, Missouri, as it was returning from an overnight drive to Chicago.5 Taylor was not in the van, but officers located Huff, Latisha Cocroft ("Cocroft") and Cocroft's thirteen-year-old daughter, ("S.G.") in the vehicle. S.G. was later interviewed at Kid's Harbor. The interview was recorded and during the interview, S. G. said Taylor, who was at Cocroft's apartment on January 11, told her that he was going to be accused of doing something, but that he didn't do anything wrong. Taylor told S.G. that if the police asked her about him, S.G. should tell them, "[he] got here at 1:00." S.G. understood Taylor was asking her to lie for him about his whereabouts.
Prior to trial, Taylor filed two motions to suppress. One sought to suppress any evidence taken "in connection with the stop, search, seizure, detention of persons, interviews, subsequent searches of [the van], materials found within the [van], [and] Latisha Cocroft's apartment[.]"6 This motion, in relevant part, alleged that "[w]ithout seeking a search warrant, [law enforcement] obtained the GPS information and the tracking information on the [van] and the web link to the [van] in real time so the police could follow the [van]’s movements in real time."
The second motion sought to suppress the identification made by Reeves because the circumstances surrounding the out-of-court identification were "inherently suggestive[.]"7 Both motions to suppress were taken with the case during the bench trial.
The trial court denied both motions to suppress. The trial court found Taylor guilty of two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, and four counts of armed criminal action. Taylor appeals in two points.
In point 1, Taylor argues "[t]he trial court erred in overruling [Taylor's] motion to suppress the evidence that was found as a result of the unlawful GPS search of [Taylor's van], including historical location data ostensibly tying him to the shootings, and the statement of [S.G.] who was a passenger in the [van] when it was finally stopped, and in admitting the evidence at trial over his objection[.]" The only evidence Taylor specifically identified in this point as being erroneously admitted is (1) the historical location data of the van and (2) S.G.’s statements.
We confine our analysis to a review of whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress and in admitting the historical location data and S.G.’s statements as evidence. To interpret Taylor's point to encompass all evidence derived from the alleged unlawful GPS data search would require us to play the role of advocate and search the record to (1) identify which of the 102 trial exhibits and testimony were obtained as a result of the search; and (2) identify whether Taylor objected to the admission of any of that evidence at trial. Performing such a task would require us to play the role of advocate. This we decline to do. "This court will not act as an advocate by scouring the record for facts to support Defendant's contentions." State v. Myers , 619 S.W.3d 578, 585 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (quoting State v. Bell , 266 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) ).
Before addressing whether the trial court erred in admitting S.G.’s statements, we must decide if Taylor preserved his claim. Generally, when a motion to suppress evidence is denied, and the evidence is offered, a defendant must object at trial to preserve his contentions for our review. State v. Hughes , 563 S.W.3d 119, 124 (Mo. banc 2018). "On the other hand, if a defendant not only fails to object but also states ‘no objection’ or stipulates to the admission of otherwise objectionable evidence, the defendant affirmatively waives any error in its admission, plain or otherwise." Id. at 125.
Taylor does not point us to anywhere in the record where he objected to S.G.’s in-person testimony or her recorded Kid's Harbor interview, State's Exhibit 102. In fact, Taylor filed a stipulation agreeing that S.G.’s recorded interview was being admitted as evidence and that Taylor "is making no further objection to the admission of this evidence." By filing a stipulation agreeing to the admission of this evidence, Taylor waived his claim that those statements should have been suppressed as evidence. By failing to object to S.G.’s in-person testimony, Taylor failed to preserve his claim on appeal regarding that testimony.8
Taylor's point also challenges the admission of the historical GPS data of his van. State's Exhibit 64 was the GPS data of Taylor's van provided by the lienholder. State's Exhibit 64 was only admitted for purposes of the motion to suppress and was not offered or admitted as evidence during trial:
Evidence admitted for a limited purpose may only be considered for that purpose, and in a bench trial, we presume the trial court did just that. See Teasdale & Assocs. v. Richmond Heights Church of God in...
To continue reading
Request your trial