Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Massa
Citations: 410 S.W.3d 645; 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 828; 2013 WL 3422895Docket: No. SD 31795
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; July 9, 2013; Missouri; State Appellate Court
Brian Geoffrey Massa appeals his conviction for first-degree involuntary manslaughter, contending errors in the admission of expert testimony, submission of jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and exclusion of the victim's motive. The court found no errors and affirmed the conviction. During the trial, evidence revealed that on March 28, 2010, while on duty as a police officer, Massa attempted to pull over a Chevy Suburban that had drifted across a fog line. After the vehicle fled at high speed, Massa pursued it, activating his police lights and body camera. The Suburban lost control while navigating a curve, spun across the roadway, and ended up in a ditch. As Massa approached the Suburban, it accelerated and collided with his police car. Massa then fired four shots into the Suburban's passenger compartment and reported over the radio that shots were fired. Upon checking the vehicle, he found the victim slumped over, with the engine still running, but did not attempt to assist him. Instead, Massa texted a message to a deputy sheriff for assistance. Defendant deactivated his body camera while attempting to call his chief of police, and upon reactivation approximately three minutes later, he had moved the victim from a vehicle to the ground and informed the victim that an ambulance was on the way. Meanwhile, Sergeant David Flanary and Deputy Richard Gidcumb of the McDonald County Sheriff's Department were responding to a domestic violence call when they heard a radio transmission about Defendant's pursuit involving a motor vehicle accident and shots fired. They proceeded to Southwest City for backup. Flanary arrived first, where he met Defendant who requested latex gloves and indicated he had called for the coroner. Defendant was unsure of the victim's injuries and explained he pursued the victim for DWI, citing the smell of alcohol during the initial stop. Defendant reported firing four shots after the victim's vehicle collided with his patrol car. Flanary and Gidcumb found two shell casings on the roadway and observed damage to Defendant's vehicle. Defendant presented a slug that he claimed fell from the Suburban while he was aiding the victim. Gidcumb later observed Defendant picking up a shell casing from the roadway, which raised concerns when discussions of a missing casing emerged. Gidcumb documented the incident as per his sergeant's directive, noting the protocol for officers not to disturb potential evidence. Flanary also documented the scene, including the condition of the Suburban, which had broken windows and bullet holes. Deputy Chris Owens, alerted to the situation, arrived to provide assistance and confirmed the victim's status with EMTs. Owens initially believed the victim may have had a weapon, but Defendant clarified that the only incident was the collision with his police vehicle. Owens inquired about the number of rounds fired by Defendant and recovered the magazine, which confirmed four shots had been discharged. He took possession of Defendant’s gun and body camera, later handing them over to the highway patrol. Owens found two shell casings in the roadway. Missouri State Highway Patrol Trooper Randy Morris arrived at the scene around 3:00 a.m., where he learned of Defendant's involvement in the shooting. After ensuring Defendant was uninjured and calm, Morris questioned him about the incident. Defendant explained he had attempted to stop a vehicle for a lane violation, detected alcohol on the driver, and began a pursuit after the driver fled. The driver lost control, struck the patrol car, prompting Defendant to exit his car and fire four or five shots. Missouri State Highway Patrol Sergeant James Musche investigated the scene, initially consulting with Trooper Morris and then interviewing first responders. Musche noted three .45-caliber shell casings, a lead slug, and a lighter on the Suburban's hood, along with damage to both the police vehicle and the Suburban. Notable findings included a bloody hat on the roadside, bullet holes in the Suburban, and a bullet that penetrated the front passenger seat’s headrest and struck the right door trim. A copper jacket fragment was found in the driver’s seat, and a bloodstain was noted on the interior driver’s door. Musche later interviewed Defendant, whose recorded statement was admitted into evidence. Defendant recounted that he was exiting his vehicle when the Suburban collided with his patrol car and fired shots because he believed the vehicle was going to hit him. He fired four shots in total, aiming at the driver’s compartment as the Suburban moved toward him. There was a brief interval between the first two shots and the last two. The victim was positioned alongside the Defendant when the last two shots were fired, which were directed at the driver’s side of a Suburban. The Defendant believed he was standing when he fired and did not recall shooting after the Suburban passed. The shots were fired as the Suburban struck the police car's bumper and subsequently passed. After firing, the Defendant heard a crash, approached the vehicle, and found the victim injured. He turned off the engine, called for an ambulance and the coroner, and attempted to contact his chief of police but was unsuccessful. The initial traffic stop was due to a lane violation and suspected drunk driving, with no other vehicles seen for thirty minutes prior to encountering the Suburban. Sergeant Musche requested Sergeant Brian Gruben from the Missouri Highway Patrol to create scaled diagrams of the incident. Gruben noted that the Suburban ended up hanging over a concrete bridge, with its left rear tire off the ground. The Defendant's police car was parked approximately fifty-three feet from the Suburban's rear. Gruben documented shell casings and tire marks indicating the Suburban’s erratic path as it navigated a curve, leading to a loss of control and eventual collision with the bridge. The evidence showed no damage to the police car's driver side, and the Suburban's right side was only exposed to the police vehicle upon striking the bridge. The vehicle’s tires were angled to the left, suggesting an attempt to correct a skid rather than a maneuver towards the police car. Gruben's diagrams were presented to the jury, illustrating the dynamics of the vehicles involved and their final positions, with the Suburban’s collision with the bridge causing it to rotate clockwise. The vehicle, a Suburban, retained enough momentum to climb onto a concrete surface and come to a stop while rotating clockwise, high-centered on a bridge. Sergeant Gruben noted that the Suburban, after making contact with the police car, was approximately 4.3 feet from the A pillar, 4.8 feet from the B pillar, and 4.9 feet from the C pillar of the police vehicle, positioning it dangerously close to the driver's door, even with it fully open. The road width was around eighteen feet. An autopsy of the victim, Bobby Stacy, confirmed a bullet wound to the head, with the bullet entering above the right ear, traversing the brain from back to front, right to left, and slightly upward, resulting in his death. Sergeant Musche's investigation revealed the trajectory of the bullets fired at the Suburban. The first two shots entered through the left rear door, with the first bullet striking the floor and the second traveling through the left rear window and into the right front door. The last two shots came from the right side of the vehicle, with one bullet entering through the right rear cargo window and another through the right rear door window, the latter fatally striking Stacy. These two shots were fired after the Suburban had become disabled. All three shell casings recovered were linked to the Defendant’s weapon, and additional projectiles found could also be associated with it. A review of ballistic evidence and video footage indicated discrepancies in the Defendant's initial statement. On April 6, 2010, the Defendant was interviewed again, where he claimed to have turned off his body camera to have a private discussion and believed his vehicle was in park when the Suburban collided with it. He mentioned not recalling drawing his gun but likely did so while exiting his vehicle, and he asserted no awareness of anyone moving shell casings. He stated the Suburban was approaching when he fired the first two shots from near his driver’s door into the vehicle's compartment. The defendant fired four shots from the driver's door of his police car at a Suburban as it passed by, believing the vehicles were "door to door." He did not recall pursuing the vehicle on foot or firing from a yard. When questioned about the bullet trajectories and the fatal shot through the right rear door window, the defendant could not remember certain details, such as crossing to the right side of the road or the time interval between the first and second shots. A projectile was found on the Suburban's driver’s door running board. He took a lighter from the victim, who was attempting to light a nonexistent cigarette. The defendant did not indicate he believed the driver was reversing toward him after passing. Sergeant Musche testified that department policy dictates officers should only shoot at vehicles as a last resort, especially if the suspect does not comply. He criticized the defendant for not adhering to proper police procedures, which included not positioning his car safely, exiting the vehicle when a threat was approaching, shooting at the vehicle after it had passed, and not approaching a disabled vehicle from cover. The defendant submitted a report a week after his second interview with Musche, claiming the Suburban accelerated toward him, struck his car, and he shot into the driver’s compartment. He did not mention smelling alcohol on the driver or expressing concerns about the driver being a dangerous drunk. The jury found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, recommending a three-year sentence, which the trial court imposed. The defendant subsequently filed a timely appeal, raising five points that will be analyzed out of order for clarity. Defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting Sergeant Brian Gruben's testimony regarding the location and dynamics of a Suburban during a critical sequence of events, arguing that such opinion testimony encroaches on the jury's role. However, Defendant did not object to this testimony at trial on the grounds he later asserts on appeal. He seeks plain error review under Rule 30.20, but this request is denied because he waived the opportunity for plain error review by failing to preserve the issue through a timely objection. A party cannot later contest the admissibility of evidence if they have previously indicated they have no objection. Here, Defendant had stipulated to the admission of certain scaled diagrams prepared by Sergeant Gruben and expressly stated "No objection" during the trial when those exhibits were introduced. These exhibits illustrated the dynamics of the Suburban, supporting Sergeant Gruben's testimony about its position during the events in question. Defendant’s stipulation and lack of objection represent affirmative actions that negate any claim of inadvertent failure to object, thus waiving his right to challenge the testimony on appeal. Affirmative acts toward admission of testimony by the Defendant waive any potential for plain error review. Consequently, the Defendant's fourth point is denied. The fifth point challenges the admission of Sergeant Jamie Musche's testimony regarding the Suburban's position during the shooting, claiming it encroached on the jury's role. The testimony indicated that the shots were fired after the vehicle impacted a bridge and was in a disabled state. However, the Defendant did not object during the trial on the grounds of jury encroachment, failing to preserve this alleged error for appellate review. The Defendant sought plain error review under Rule 30.20, which is applied selectively for evident, obvious, and clear errors that affect substantial rights. This rule requires the Defendant to demonstrate not just prejudice, but a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice that is outcome-determinative. The appellate court emphasized that it is not obliged to conduct plain error review and noted that the Defendant did not adequately address the requirements of manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in his argument. As such, the court declined to perform a plain error review, asserting that doing so would require advocacy for the Defendant. The Defendant's claims regarding the impact of Sergeant Musche's testimony on his conviction were deemed insufficient to meet the plain error standard. Allegations of prejudice presented by the Defendant do not constitute sufficient grounds for a plain-error claim. Plain-error analysis necessitates assessing the facts and circumstances that may lead to a determination of manifest injustice, which the Defendant failed to articulate in his brief. The appellate court cannot act as the Defendant's advocate by searching the record for supportive arguments. Consequently, the Defendant's fifth point is denied. Regarding the Defendant's claim of trial court error in submitting Instructions 10 and 11, the court noted that these instructions were provided to the jury as requested by the Defendant without objection. The State argues that this request constitutes a waiver of any error claim due to the principle of invited error, supported by precedent in State v. Bolden. The court agrees, emphasizing that a defendant cannot both propose and later challenge the same instruction. The Defendant's attempts to distinguish his situation from Bolden are unconvincing, as the core issue remains the invitation of error through his request. The court highlights that while the trial court is obliged to submit applicable MAI-CR instructions, the Defendant is not mandated to request instructions he believes do not apply. Thus, his request for Instructions 10 and 11 not only invited potential error but also encouraged the trial court to submit them under Rule 28.02(c). Defendant argues that the legal precedent from State v. Beck, 167 S.W.3d 767 (Mo.App.2005), should invalidate the self-defense instruction given at trial; however, this assertion lacks supporting arguments or legal citations, rendering it unpersuasive. The court declines to advocate for Defendant in this matter. Additionally, in challenging the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction, Defendant claims that no reasonable juror could conclude he recklessly caused the death of Bobby Stacy, asserting that he was legally justified in attempting to arrest Stacy and that the evidence does not support a finding of reckless behavior. The court emphasizes that its role on appeal is to determine if any rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, without reweighing evidence or acting as a super juror. The review process involves identifying the necessary factual propositions for conviction and evaluating all favorable evidence supporting those propositions. Evidence presented by the Defendant, including his claims regarding his intentions and actions, is deemed non-probative in establishing his defense against charges of recklessness and justification for using deadly force. The appellate court emphasizes that the standard of review requires disregarding evidence that contradicts the verdict, and thus the Defendant's reliance on his own statements lacks logical support. Testimony from Deputy Gid-cumb and expert witnesses Gruben and Musche, which the Defendant acknowledged as favorable, was not challenged on its probative value, but rather on witness credibility. The court reiterates that it defers to the fact-finder regarding credibility and will not reassess the evidence or conclusions drawn by the jury. The admissibility of expert testimony is distinct from its sufficiency in supporting a case, and any objections regarding the foundation of such testimony must be timely raised. Ultimately, the court finds that the expert testimony provided sufficient grounds for a reasonable juror to conclude that the Defendant's actions were reckless and unjustified. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to exclude evidence of the victim's bad acts or reputation not considered by the Defendant at the time of the incident. During a break in Sergeant Musche’s testimony, the Defendant offered proof that Sergeant Musche would testify that, later that morning, the Suburban and a backpack inside it were reported stolen, but he had no evidence or witnesses to support that the victim had stolen them. The Defendant acknowledged that he was unaware of the items being stolen at the time of the shooting. The trial court denied the admission of this testimony, deeming it not logically relevant since the victim's state of mind was not at issue, focusing instead on the Defendant's perception of events. The Defendant argued that the court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony, claiming it was relevant to establish the victim's motive to escape and intention to cause serious injury to the Defendant. However, the court's ruling on evidence relevance is afforded broad discretion, and such decisions are only overturned for clear abuse, which was not demonstrated in this case. Although the Defendant suggested that the testimony could indicate the victim had stolen the Suburban, the court found that, even if this were true, the Defendant's lack of awareness at the time of the shooting negated its relevance to his defense claims of self-defense and justification. The Defendant contended that he needed to demonstrate the victim’s commission of a crime to justify his defense, but it was noted that the Defendant knew the victim was resisting arrest. Even if the victim had stolen the Suburban, the Defendant’s ignorance of that fact at the shooting time prevented him from using that to justify his actions. The Defendant also cited State v. Caldwell to support the admission of testimony, but the court found it inapplicable, as it involved a defendant who was aware that he was driving a stolen vehicle during an incident with police. Caldwell's car swerved towards Officer Shoemake, who fired at him, prompting Caldwell to narrowly miss the officer before crashing into trees. After his arrest, Caldwell claimed he ducked to avoid being shot and did not intend to hit the officer. At trial, he contested the introduction of evidence regarding the stolen status of his vehicle and alleged tampering, which the Eastern District Court upheld as relevant to establish his intent and motive. The court contrasted Caldwell's case, where the defendant was the driver and the officer the victim, with the current case where the officer is the defendant and the driver is the victim. It noted that while the state of mind of the defendant is a jury issue, the victim’s state of mind is not relevant based on the precedents set in Caldwell. The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding certain testimony and affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Additionally, the court addressed motions filed by the defendant during the appeal, finding no merit in them. The court also confirmed stipulations regarding trial exhibits related to diagrams presented as evidence, affirming the rules governing jury instructions in criminal trials. Counsel must submit written requests for jury instructions and verdict forms at the close of evidence or as directed by the court, providing an original and copies for the court and each party. Each submission must include a notation indicating if it is from the MAI-CR standards or modified. MAI-CR instructions and verdict forms take precedence over any other forms when applicable. If modifications to MAI-CR forms are necessary, these should be simple, impartial, and devoid of detailed evidentiary facts, adhering as closely as possible to the MAI-CR format. The excerpt also references a legal principle highlighted in Bolden v. Beck, emphasizing that law enforcement cannot act on mere suspicion without knowledge of a crime.