Rhonda Glover v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-06-00232-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 7, 2007; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Rhonda Glover was convicted of murder and sentenced to 46 years in prison. She raised four points of error on appeal, claiming the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide, admitting evidence from her apartment, and excluding evidence of extraneous offenses by the victim, James 'Jimmy' Joste. The case involved the discovery of Joste's body, which was found shot multiple times in Glover's home. Forensic analysis revealed that Joste was shot in the bedroom and continued into the hallway, where he sustained further injuries before collapsing. An autopsy determined he had 13 gunshot wounds, with some indicative of defensive actions. Shell casings from a Glock 19, owned by Glover, were found at the scene. Glover became a suspect after police learned of her relationship with Joste and her ownership of the firearm used in the crime. The judgment was ultimately affirmed by the court.

Glover rented a recreational vehicle (RV) on July 21 and was found with her son in it on July 27 in Ellis County, Kansas. She was arrested under a federal warrant for firearms violations, and authorities discovered a Glock nine-millimeter handgun during a search of the RV. Following her arrest, Glover permitted Officer Walker to search her apartment in Houston, where a business card for Americo Mastroianni, an instructor at Top Gun Shooting Range, was found. Walker had previously received information from Joste's brother about Glover's connection to Mastroianni, who had already been interviewed by police.

During the trial, Mastroianni testified that he first instructed Glover and her son in firearm use in May 2004, during which Glover rented a Glock handgun. He taught her techniques, including the 'double tap' method, and noted her proficiency in hitting practice targets. Glover returned to the shooting range on July 10, purchasing ammunition and shooting without supervision, and again on July 15 with her own Glock 19. She inquired about advanced firearms training, expressing a need to secure her home in Austin, where she suspected unauthorized persons had been present.

Mastroianni recounted that Glover requested instruction on specific scenarios, including how to confront an intruder sitting on her sofa. When he questioned her motive, Glover mentioned the potential threat of the intruder turning a gun on her. Mastroianni explained shooting tactics but declined to endorse further violence, instructing her instead to leave the situation and contact law enforcement after an initial threat was neutralized.

Glover practiced shooting scenarios and successfully hit practice targets, demonstrating quick learning despite her lack of training. On July 21, 2004, the day of the alleged shooting, she practiced at Red's Indoor Shooting Range and inquired about her improvement. Glover admitted to shooting Joste but claimed it was in self-defense, citing past physical abuse from him, including choking and threats to kill her on the day of the incident. During cross-examination, she suggested the gun discharged uncontrollably. The trial's focal point was their relationship, with Rocky Navarro testifying they had a long-term, albeit unformalized, partnership, asserting Joste was supportive and never witnessed him mistreat Glover. Other witnesses characterized Joste as passive and loving, contrasting with Glover's purported aggression. Testimony from Christy Dillon revealed an incident where Glover physically assaulted Joste. Patricia Swenson recounted a conversation where Glover expressed extreme hostility toward Joste and talked about violent intentions. The court excluded testimony regarding allegations of Joste's involvement in child pornography and sexual abuse of Glover's child, deeming it more prejudicial than probative. Glover, during cross-examination, violated a court order by asserting Joste had molested her son.

The district court instructed the jury on self-defense but denied Glover's request for a charge on criminally negligent homicide, stating the offense was not supported by the evidence. Glover was convicted of murdering Joste and sentenced to 46 years in prison, leading to this appeal. Glover's first argument is that the court should have included an instruction on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense. The standard for such a charge requires that the lesser offense must be part of the proof for the charged offense and that evidence exists allowing a rational jury to find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense while acquitting them of the greater. Criminally negligent homicide is defined as causing death through criminal negligence, which involves failing to perceive risks from one's actions. The court emphasized that if the evidence indicates the defendant was aware of the risk, a charge for criminally negligent homicide is not warranted. The determination of whether the evidence justifies the lesser charge must consider all presented evidence, and not every instance of pointing a loaded gun or claims of accidental discharge automatically necessitates such a charge. The critical issue on appeal is whether there was any evidence that could lead a rational jury to acquit Glover of murder while convicting her of criminally negligent homicide.

A defendant's awareness of the risks associated with handling a loaded firearm, coupled with actions that demonstrate a disregard for those risks, indicates at least recklessness. In this case, evidence showed that Glover was familiar with firearms, had practiced with the specific gun used in the shooting, and had undergone advanced firearms training. Testimony from her instructor confirmed her proficiency. The crime scene evidence indicated that Joste was shot multiple times while retreating, contradicting any claim of negligence on Glover's part. Glover testified that she shot Joste in self-defense during an assault, asserting she believed her life was in danger. Her claim that the gun "just went off" was interpreted as accidental discharge but did not meet the threshold for criminally negligent homicide, which requires more substantial evidence of risk awareness. Consequently, the court determined there was insufficient evidence for a rational jury to find Glover not guilty of murder while convicting her of criminally negligent homicide, affirming the district court's decision to deny the lesser charge instruction. Glover's appeal on this point was overruled.

Glover challenged the admission of evidence seized from her Houston apartment, arguing that the State did not demonstrate that she consented to the search voluntarily. She pointed to her previous finding of incompetence to stand trial at the time of her consent, claiming this undermined her ability to provide valid consent. However, the court deemed any potential error in admitting the evidence as harmless. The only incriminating item found was a business card belonging to Mastroianni, which Glover claimed was essential to the State's case. Nonetheless, the court noted that Glover's connection to Mastroianni had already been established through other evidence admitted prior to the card, including testimony and documents connecting her to the shooting range where Mastroianni worked. 

Glover also contended that the district court improperly excluded evidence regarding her desire to "get rid of" Joste and allegations of prior abuse by Joste against both her and their child. The court clarified that evidence of Joste's assaults was not excluded; multiple witnesses had testified about an incident where Joste pleaded no contest to assaulting Glover, and Glover had the opportunity to recount various instances of alleged abuse by Joste. Ultimately, the court overruled Glover's second and third points.

The review of sexual-abuse allegations hinges on the trial court's discretion to admit or exclude evidence, requiring an appellate court to uphold the decision unless it is outside a reasonable disagreement zone. Glover contended that her entire conversation with Swenson, where she expressed a desire to "get rid of" Joste, should be admitted under the 'Rule of Optional Completeness,' which allows for the introduction of related statements to fully understand the context. However, two exceptions apply: only relevant parts may be admitted, and evidence can be excluded under Rule 403 if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. The district court conducted a Rule 403 balancing test, finding that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value, considering factors like the evidence's probative value and its potential to improperly influence the jury. Glover's proposed evidence, claiming Joste's involvement with child pornography justified her comments, was deemed to have low probative value, as it did not diminish the seriousness of her expressed intent. The district court's decision to exclude this evidence was upheld, noting that trial courts are afforded significant deference in such determinations.

Evidence related to allegations of child pornography and sexual abuse involving the victim posed a significant risk of irrational jury influence, warranting exclusion. The district court noted that admitting such evidence would necessitate a "side trial" for rebuttal, which could prolong the already lengthy proceedings. Additionally, the probative value of the evidence for Glover's defense was low; it did not effectively demonstrate her intent to "get rid of" the victim and could potentially suggest a motive for murder instead. Glover's argument regarding the exclusion of her testimony about the sexual-abuse allegations was also deemed unfounded. Defense counsel's attempt to elicit this testimony was met with an objection from the State, and the court sustained this objection, considering the evidence to be more prejudicial than probative. To substantiate her self-defense claim, Glover needed to show a reasonable belief in the necessity of using deadly force against unlawful actions by Joste, which was not supported by the excluded evidence. The district court's decisions were affirmed as consistent with Rule 403 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, leading to the conclusion that the judgment was upheld.