State v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 02 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. ED 108566,ED 108566
• Citation: State v. Watkins, 618 S.W.3d 265 (Mo. App. 2021)
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joshua WATKINS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

618 S.W.3d 265

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Joshua WATKINS, Appellant.

No. ED 108566

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: March 2, 2021

FOR APPELLANT: James C. Egan, 1000 West Nifong Blvd., Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203.

FOR RESPONDENT: Julia E. Rives, Eric Schmitt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Angela T. Quigless, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

James M. Dowd, Judge

Introduction

Joshua Watkins appeals the judgment entered after he was found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County of two counts of first degree assault, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of the unlawful use of a weapon for which he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. These charges arose from an August, 2018 incident in Kirkwood, Missouri in which Watkins shot two victims leaving both severely injured. On appeal, Watkins argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain incriminating statements he made during a custodial interview on the night of the shootings because his Miranda rights’ waiver was not knowing and intelligent. He further asserts that he was prejudiced by this error because without these incriminating statements in evidence, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different since the remaining evidence against him was not overwhelming.

Finding no clear error, we affirm.

Background

On the evening of August 22, 2018, outside his Kirkwood, Missouri home, Watkins and his friends Aleah Poe and Terrell Cunningham, the two victims here, were socializing. All three had taken the prescription drug Xanax and Watkins also reportedly consumed alcohol and cocaine. At some point, Cunningham got possession of Watkins’ firearm and proceeded to nearby railroad tracks where he fired several rounds into the air. When Cunningham returned, Watkins became angry and accused Cunningham of stealing the weapon from him though Cunningham claimed Watkins had allowed him to borrow it. Watkins struck Cunningham, a struggle over the weapon ensued, and it discharged. Watkins then got control of the gun and shot Cunningham three times while he lay on the ground. Poe ran to her vehicle and got in the passenger seat. Watkins approached the car and fired three shots at Poe through the windshield hitting her in the face.

Kirkwood Police, who were nearby investigating the earlier gunshots, arrived almost immediately on the scene. They found Poe and Cunningham lying in the street, bloody, and in need of urgent medical attention. Police body camera footage from the scene captured both Poe and Cunningham pointing toward Watkins and screaming that he had shot them while Watkins appeared to be walking away from the scene. Watkins was placed under arrest and a K-9 unit later recovered his firearm in between two houses near the crime scene.

Poe and Cunningham were transported to the hospital where they underwent extensive emergency surgeries. Cunningham had a metal rod placed inside his femur and Poe lost her left eye. Both victims told police the following day that Watkins had shot them after he became upset that Cunningham had shot his gun, and further that Watkins had voluntarily taken multiple intoxicating substances prior to the shooting.

Watkins was taken to the Kirkwood police station and allowed to sleep. After he slept for several hours, police brought Watkins back into an interrogation room, presented to him a Miranda waiver form, and proceeded to read him his Miranda rights. Watkins’ initials appear next to each Miranda right set forth on the waiver form. He wrote "yes" and initialed next to the question "Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you?" and then he signed his name before he began speaking with the officers about the shootings.

Watkins initially stated that he did not remember what happened the night before. A detective noted that Watkins appeared "out of it" and offered to let him go back to sleep. Watkins insisted he was not "out of it" and wanted to tell the officers what happened. Watkins asked multiple times if the officers were writing down what he said and if the interview was being recorded. Watkins admitted that he voluntarily took Xanax and that he shot Cunningham because he was upset that Cunningham had used his gun. As for Poe, Watkins initially stated he did not remember shooting her, but later admitted he stood in front of the car and shot her through the windshield.

At the crime scene, detectives recovered seven shell casings. A ballistic lab analysis showed that all seven casings came from the firearm recovered at the scene, which was registered to Watkins. A gunshot residue test performed on Watkins’ hands was positive, indicating he had recently discharged a firearm.

When Poe awoke from surgery, she told Detective Beckman that she saw Watkins consume cocaine and that she had given him Xanax. Poe said she left Watkins’ house before the shootings to get cigarettes and when she returned, she saw Cunningham holding Watkins’ gun. She observed that Watkins was angry that Cunningham had shot the gun and failed to retrieve all the shell casings. She then witnessed Watkins knock Cunningham down and shoot him as he lay on the ground.

For his part, Cunningham told Detective Beckman that Watkins struck him and then shot him because he was angry that Cunningham shot his gun. Cunningham said that Watkins was the only person he saw with a gun that night and that Watkins probably shot him because he was intoxicated.

At trial, the jury heard the recorded statements each victim gave Detective Beckman at the hospital the day after the shootings in which each victim identified Watkins as the shooter. Both victims confirmed the voices on the recording of their statements to Detective Beckman were theirs. The victims’ trial testimony differed from their recorded statements as both told the jury they could neither remember Watkins shooting them nor giving statements to Detective Beckman the following day. Both denied they consumed drugs, denied they offered drugs to Watkins, and denied they observed Watkins use drugs.

Standard of Review

A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence at trial will be affirmed unless it is clearly erroneous. State v. Bates , 464 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). A ruling is considered clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C. , 470 U.S. 564, 565, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this Court considers the evidence presented at both the suppression hearing and at trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the ruling. State v. Pike , 162 S.W.3d 464, 472 (Mo. banc 2005). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, and this Court defers to the trial court's credibility determinations. State v. Collings , 450 S.W.3d 741, 753 (Mo. banc 2014).

When the admissibility of a defendant's statement has been challenged, the State bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made the statement. State v. Bucklew , 973 S.W.2d 83, 87 (Mo. banc 1998). To determine whether Watkins’ waiver of his Miranda rights was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and thus valid, we consider "the totality of the circumstances." U.S. v. Figueroa-Serrano , 971 F.3d 806, 814 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Vinton , 631 F.3d 476, 483 (8th Cir. 2011) ). This inquiry depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including "the background, experience, and conduct of the accused," Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U.S. 477, 482, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), and such an inquiry is "an examination that was designed for a trial judge." Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 244, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973).

Discussion

The lone issue before us is whether Watkins voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis such that the incriminating statements he made during his custodial interview were properly admitted at trial.

I. Watkins’ Miranda-rights waiver was knowing and intelligent.

A knowing and intelligent waiver is "normally shown by having a police officer testify that he read the accused his rights, asked whether the rights were understood, and received an affirmative response." State v. Wise , 879 S.W.2d 494, 505 (Mo. banc 1994). "The knowing and intelligent requirement does not mean that a defendant must know and understand all the possible consequences of the waiver." State v. Powell , 798 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo. banc 1990) (quoting Moran v. Burbine , 475 U.S. 412, 422, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986) ).

A. The...