Shawn Cone v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 2022 Ark. 201

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 10, 2022; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Shawn Cone was convicted by a Craighead County jury of capital murder, abuse of a corpse, and theft of property, receiving consecutive sentences of life without parole, twenty years, and twelve years, respectively. He also faced two misdemeanor theft charges related to the victim's cell phone and vehicle, for which he received one-year sentences. On appeal, Cone challenged only his felony convictions, arguing that the circuit court improperly admitted a list of countries without extradition treaties with the U.S., erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence from his backpack due to lack of probable cause, misapplied rules regarding the admission of medical examiner photos, and wrongly denied his directed-verdict motion on the felony charges.

The case stemmed from the murder of Alissa Reynolds on December 2, 2019, following the end of her relationship with Cone. Police found her body during a welfare check on December 8, after initially leaving when there was no response. The body was discovered decomposing on a chaise lounge, dressed in work clothing, with blood-soaked items nearby. Surveillance footage indicated that Cone had been seen driving the victim's vehicle and using her credit cards and cell phone shortly after her death. The timeline of events included Cone arriving home after Reynolds and later leaving alone in her Range Rover. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court's decision.

On December 2, John Wood witnessed Cone driving Ms. Reynolds’s Range Rover to the Elks Lodge around 7:00 p.m. Jeffery Powell saw Cone again on December 6, also driving the Range Rover. Daniel Neal testified that Cone used Ms. Reynolds’s credit card to buy beer on December 2. On the same day, Cone purchased a new cell phone at a Sprint store, again using the victim's credit card. Calls were made from Ms. Reynolds’s cell phone to her employer on December 3 and 4 by a man identifying as Shawn, claiming she was ill, which Cone later admitted to making. Cone also misled Ms. Reynolds's family and friends about her status. An autopsy revealed she had been stabbed eighteen times, with defensive wounds on her hands, and the medical examiner concluded she likely died on December 2. Cone’s DNA was found under her fingernails. He was apprehended on December 9 in Key West, Florida, where Detective Brian Arnold seized Cone's possessions, including a backpack with a list of countries lacking extradition treaties with the U.S., highlighting Cuba. Cone attempted to suppress this evidence unsuccessfully. Detective Keri Varner recovered Google searches from Cone’s phone about non-extradition countries. Cone confided to friends about moving to Key West to avoid prison and discussed potential escape routes. During his defense testimony, Cone acknowledged being recorded entering Ms. Reynolds's home on December 2 and admitted to finding her deceased but claimed he did not report it to the police due to anticipated assumptions about his involvement. Instead, he covered her body with blankets and pillows.

Cone admitted to an argument with Ms. Reynolds on the day of her murder and acknowledged multiple Facebook messages from her indicating she was ending their relationship. He was recorded by neighbors coming and going from her home after her death and stayed there until police conducted a welfare check on December 8, 2019. Cone expressed that he felt he had to leave quickly, stating he packed his belongings and departed, leaving his passport in a vehicle. He also confessed to using Ms. Reynolds’s phone post-murder to communicate with her contacts, falsely claiming she was hospitalized and reporting to her workplace that she had the flu. He utilized her Range Rover, which he left damaged at the Memphis airport, and used her credit cards. Although the evidence against him was largely circumstantial, he was convicted on all charges.

Cone’s appeal included a challenge to the circuit court's denial of his directed-verdict motions for capital murder, abuse of a corpse, and theft. He argued there was insufficient direct evidence of premeditated murder or that he committed the stabbing, claiming the state's evidence was speculative. Regarding abuse of a corpse, he contended that the evidence only indicated he was in and out of the home and did not demonstrate mistreatment of the body. The court denied these motions, and the review of such denials requires viewing evidence favorably towards the verdict, with substantial evidence being necessary to support the conviction. The jury is tasked with determining whether circumstantial evidence eliminates any reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence.

Cone contests his capital murder conviction, arguing that the evidence presented was circumstantial and insufficient to establish guilt. He claims that his presence at Ms. Reynolds's house, use of her belongings, and arrest in Key West do not prove he committed the crime. Cone also points to pending theft charges as motivation for his potential flight from Jonesboro and mentions uninvestigated vehicles at the crime scene as further doubt. However, the court finds substantial evidence supporting both the identity of the perpetrator and the necessary mental state for conviction. 

Key points include that premised murder requires a deliberate intention to kill, which can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Evidence against Cone includes a quarrel with Ms. Reynolds on the murder day, her Facebook messages indicating their relationship's end, and the absence of forced entry, supported by officer testimony and bodycam footage. The autopsy revealed defensive wounds on Ms. Reynolds, with Cone's DNA found under her fingernails. Surveillance footage placed Cone at the residence after Ms. Reynolds returned home, and his subsequent flight attempts indicated a consciousness of guilt. The nature and extent of the stab wounds, including eighteen stabs and multiple cuts, suggest premeditated intent.

Regarding the abuse of a corpse charge, Cone argues that the evidence is similarly weak, but the court finds this unconvincing. Under Arkansas law, abuse of a corpse involves knowingly mistreating or concealing a body in an offensive manner. The court maintains that the evidence sufficiently supports the allegations against Cone for both charges.

'In a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities' refers to actions that deviate from acceptable corpse handling practices. Abuse of a corpse constitutes a Class C felony. Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Cone murdered the victim and was solely responsible for concealing her body, as confirmed by surveillance footage showing him at the scene. The jury could reasonably conclude that Cone had both the motive and opportunity to conceal the body by covering it with bedding, and leaving the victim decomposing on a chaise lounge would be deemed offensive to reasonable sensibilities. There was no evidence of any other person being involved in concealing the body while Cone resided there.

Cone faced three counts of theft for using Ms. Reynolds’s Range Rover, cell phone, and credit cards. The charges related to the Range Rover and cell phone were reduced to misdemeanors and are not part of the appellate brief. Cone claimed that his use of the credit cards was not unauthorized since he lived with Ms. Reynolds, arguing that any unauthorized use was speculative. However, the circuit court noted that Ms. Reynolds had communicated her breakup with Cone on the day of her death, countering his claims. The court found substantial evidence that Cone used the credit cards posthumously, including testimony indicating Cone believed the victim 'probably hated him,' suggesting his use was not authorized.

Regarding the admission of a list of countries without extradition treaties with the U.S., found in Cone's backpack at his arrest, Cone argued this violated Arkansas Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 due to lack of relevance and potential prejudice. The circuit court admitted the list, contingent on the State providing evidence of Cone's statements about fleeing the country. Cone contended that no evidence supported an intention to flee, particularly to Cuba, and pointed out that he left his passport behind.

The State contends that the issue is not preserved for review, arguing that a defendant must renew objections contemporaneously with alleged errors during trial. In this case, it asserts that Cone failed to object when Gina Tilton first testified about a list, doing so only after Stephanie Fagaley’s testimony. Citing Ward v. State, the State argues that this failure bars Cone’s claim. Legal precedent establishes that a contemporaneous objection is necessary when a trial court makes a conditional ruling based on evidence representations. Consequently, the issue is deemed unpreserved for review.

Regarding the suppression of evidence from Cone’s backpack, Detective Brian Arnold testified that Cone was arrested while carrying the backpack, which was seized but not searched by deputies. Arnold prepared two warrants: one for the backpack's release to Jonesboro police and another for its search. Cone argued for suppression, claiming the warrant lacked probable cause. The circuit court ruled the warrant sufficient, noting that the affidavit referenced a welfare check that discovered a deceased female victim with injuries, linking Cone as a suspect. The court found that the timeline and details provided in the affidavit established probable cause and that the warrant was executed in good faith, with no false information presented. The magistrate's neutrality was also affirmed, concluding that a substantial basis for probable cause was demonstrated.

Cone contends that the circuit court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his backpack, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, functioned as a "General Warrant," and mistakenly relied on his waiver of a warrantless search. The reviewing court, however, maintains that it conducts an independent analysis based on the totality of circumstances and evaluates historical fact findings for clear error, reversing only if the circuit court’s ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 

The Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure outline specific requirements for search warrant particularity, including the identity of the judicial officer, the basis for reasonable cause, the identity and location of the person and place to be searched, the items to be seized, and the timeframe for warrant execution. The issuing officer may authorize nighttime execution or extended execution periods under certain conditions. 

Legal precedent indicates that overly technical challenges to search warrants are disfavored, and a practical, common-sense assessment suffices if there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found. In this case, Cone’s backpack was described with sufficient particularity, and the magistrate was aware of the murder details, establishing probable cause for the search based on the likelihood that blood evidence and other stolen property, such as the victim's credit cards found with Cone, would be present. Consequently, the warrant was deemed adequate for searching Cone’s backpack, rendering the argument regarding the parolee search waiver unnecessary.

Cone contends that the circuit court improperly admitted autopsy photographs into evidence. Despite his objections, the medical examiner used these photographs to illustrate Ms. Reynolds's injuries and the condition of her corpse. The initial photo oriented the jury to her upper body, while the subsequent sixteen depicted various wounds, including defensive wounds on her hands and forearms, multiple stab wounds to her chest, neck, and mouth, and significant damage to her jugular vein and carotid artery, indicative of a fatal injury. The medical examiner noted signs of decomposition consistent with death occurring several days before the examination. Cone argued that the photographs violated Arkansas Rule of Evidence 403, which allows for exclusion if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice or confusion. He highlighted the gruesome nature of the images and likened the case to Berry v. State, where the court reversed a conviction due to the prejudicial nature of the photos used. The court countered that admission is at the discretion of the circuit court, emphasizing that photographs can be permissible if they elucidate testimony, even if graphic. The court distinguished this case from Berry, noting that the photographs were relevant and directly tied to the medical examiner's testimony. Consequently, the circuit court's decision to admit the photos was upheld, and a review under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(a) found no prejudicial error, affirming the ruling.