Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. McBenge

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, First Division

November 15, 2016

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,
v.
CECIL RUSSELL MCBENGE, Appellant.

         Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Charles County 1111-CR05528-01 Honorable Daniel G. Pelikan

          ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, Presiding Judge.

         Cecil Russell McBenge ("Defendant") appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree murder for his alleged involvement in the 1984 killing of Eleonora Knoernschild ("Victim"). We reverse and remand for a new trial.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Over two decades after Victim's murder, a DNA analysis linked Defendant and his brother Brian McBenge[1] to evidence found on or near Victim's property shortly after she was killed. In separate underlying cases, Defendant and Brian were each charged with and found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder based on accomplice liability.[2] The State's third substitute information in lieu of indictment in Defendant's case ("the information") charging him with first-degree murder alleged he acted in concert with another, and after deliberation, knowingly caused the death of Victim on or between November 2nd and 4th of 1984 by beating her. The information also gave Defendant notice that the State may submit an instruction for second-degree felony murder to the jury based on the death of Victim as a result of Defendant's perpetration of the class B felony of first-degree burglary. Defendant's jury trial was held on September 22-October 3, 2014.

         A. Evidence Presented at Defendant's Trial

         Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the following evidence was presented at Defendant's trial.[3]

         1. Evidence Relating to Circumstances and Events Occurring in the Years Prior to Victim's Murder, including the 1980 Burglary of Victim's Home

         Defendant's brother Brian met Victim's granddaughter ("Granddaughter") in 1977 when they were both teenagers and they eventually started dating. They dated for approximately eight months until sometime in 1979. During the timeframe Brian and Granddaughter were dating, they would frequently go to Victim's home and spend time in her kitchen. It was not unusual for Brian and Granddaughter to eat while they were at Victim's home. In addition, while Brian was dating Granddaughter, he became aware Victim kept extra cash in a Calumet baking powder can ("the Calumet can") located in the lower kitchen cabinets next to her refrigerator, because Brian saw Granddaughter steal money from the Calumet can when Victim was not looking. Granddaughter testified she met Defendant sometime in 1979, when the two of them were attending the same children's home.

         In March of 1980, Victim's house was broken into while she was in the hospital. Police classified the break-in of Victim's home as a burglary ("the 1980 burglary").[4] Around the time the crime occurred, police officers lifted a latent fingerprint from the refrigerator door handle; however, it went unidentified until 1986, when officers determined the fingerprint belonged to Defendant's brother Brian. Nevertheless, Brian was not a suspect in the 1980 burglary near the time it occurred and he was never charged in connection with the crime.[5] In addition, Defendant was not ever a suspect in or charged with the 1980 burglary.

         Sometime after the 1980 burglary, Victim had bars installed on the basement windows of her home. Victim also moved the Calumet can to her bedroom.

         2. Evidence Relating to Circumstances Surrounding Victim's 1984 Murder and the Subsequent Police Investigation of the Crime

         Victim's murder occurred sometime between November 2nd and November 4th of 1984. Around that same timeframe, Defendant and his brother Brian lived in a home located about one mile away and within walking distance of Victim's home.

         On November 2, 1984, before Victim's body was discovered, Victim's longtime housekeeper cleaned Victim's home, including the kitchen and kitchen floor. The housekeeper testified Victim always kept her house tidy, with everything put in its proper place.

         During the morning of November 4, 1984, Victim's daughter called the police after she went to Victim's home to bring her the newspaper and noticed the glass window on the front door had been broken out and removed. Police responded to Victim's home, searched the premises, and conducted an investigation which revealed the following.

         Police discovered a person or persons had gained entry to Victim's home. It appeared that whoever entered Victim's home crawled through the space where the glass window on the front door had been, because the front door was still locked. Victim's bedroom, kitchen, basement, and hallway had been ransacked, and several drawers, cabinets, and items were opened throughout the house.

         In the bedroom, Victim's body was found lying on the floor underneath clothes and papers which had been thrown around. Victim, who was elderly and weighed less than one-hundred pounds, had blood and multiple bruises on her face, a split lip, and two broken ribs on each side of her body caused by blunt force. In addition, part of the bedspread was looped around Victim's neck as if she might have been strangled. However, Dr. Clarke Harding, the pathologist who performed Victim's autopsy, determined she did not die from strangulation. Instead, Dr. Harding determined Victim's cause of death was repeated blunt trauma, from being beaten multiple times. Dr. Harding testified he could not determine how many people had beaten Victim.

         Two kitchen-type knives and lock boxes were found on the bedroom floor, and the Calumet can was found in Victim's bedroom closet, which was open and appeared to be ransacked. There were two dressers in the bedroom, both of which had multiple drawers open and at least one drawer rummaged through extensively. In addition, the tops of both dressers were in disarray. A total of eight nylon stockings, which all appeared to be the same style and size, were found in the bedroom; some of them were hanging from one of the dresser drawers and the others were lying on the floor. In addition, some of the bedding was rolled up toward the head of the bed, while other bedding was on the floor.

         In the kitchen, four lower cabinets and two drawers next to Victim's refrigerator were open, but the top cabinets were closed. Various items were dumped out on the kitchen countertop; the bread box and multiple containers were open; and gloves were found on the kitchen floor. Finally, the refrigerator door and crisper drawer were open, and lying on the floor in front of the refrigerator were a large plastic bag containing some grapefruit, a frozen meal, a Tupperware container, a piece of cheese with a bite mark taken out of it, and an empty single-serve cheese wrapper.

         In the basement, lock boxes had been dumped on the floor and personal papers were spread across the floor. In the hallway, doors on two cabinets were opened and items were dumped on the floor. In the dining room, one cabinet had a drawer which was open and another cabinet had a door which was open.

         Outside the house, near the back of Victim's property by an alley, two nylon stockings were found lying on the ground. Victim's flashlight, which she usually kept on top of shelves built into the headboard of her bed, was found a little farther away across the alley. In addition, two gloves, one blue and one maroon, were found in a bush in the front yard of a nearby house.

         Police suspected more than one person was involved in the 1984 crime because of the two knives found in Victim's bedroom and evidence of two pairs of gloves found in the kitchen and outside of Victim's property. DNA testing was not performed until 2011 on, inter alia, the cheese wrapper found on the floor of Victim's kitchen, the two nylon stockings found by the alley near the back of Victim's property, and the blue glove found in the bush of a nearby home. Daniel Fahnestock, who worked for the crime lab at the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department, conducted DNA testing on the items. The presence of DNA found on the items was compared with Defendant's and his brother Brian's DNA, who were both Caucasians, as well as Victim's DNA. Testing performed on the cheese wrapper revealed the presence of single-source DNA on the wrapper which was consistent with Brian's DNA, and the probability of someone else in the general Caucasian population having the same DNA profile was 1 in 741, 000. In addition, testing performed on the two nylon stockings revealed the presence of only Victim's DNA on one stocking but a mixture of her DNA and a male's DNA on the other stocking. The male DNA found on the stocking was consistent with Defendant's DNA, and the probability of someone else in the general Caucasian population having the same DNA profile was 1 in 6.17 million.[6] Finally, testing performed on the blue glove revealed the presence of DNA which was consistent with Victim's DNA.

         B. Defendant's Arguments Raised at Trial and Other Relevant Procedural Posture

         At the close of the State's evidence and at the close of all of the evidence, Defendant filed motions for judgment of acquittal which asserted the State failed to prove the elements of the crimes alleged in the information.

         During Defendant's jury trial, he objected to the admission of evidence relating to the 1980 burglary of Victim's home, arguing it was improper evidence of a prior uncharged crime. In addition, over Defendant's continuing objection, Officer Leslie Simpson, [7] who was present at the crime scene after the 1980 burglary of Victim's home and after the 1984 break-in of Victim's home and her murder, was allowed to testify about the details of the 1980 burglary and the similarities between the two crimes.

         Defendant also made an objection to admission of the cheese wrapper and the stocking, arguing both items should be excluded from evidence because the State could not provide a reasonable assurance that they were in substantially the same condition when tested as they were when they were originally seized. In addition, Defendant objected to the admission of some of the exhibits and testimony from Fahnestock pertaining to DNA testing on the cheese wrapper, on the grounds the evidence concerned DNA data which was unreliable.

         The trial court denied Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal. The court also overruled Defendant's objections to the admission of evidence relating to the 1980 burglary, the admission of the cheese wrapper, the admission of the stocking, and the admission of the challenged evidence pertaining to the DNA testing on the cheese wrapper.[8]

         The State submitted an instruction for first-degree murder to the jury and an alternate instruction for second-degree felony murder. Both instructions were based on accomplice liability. The first-degree murder instruction, Instruction No. 5, required the jury to find, inter alia, that Defendant acted alone or aided or encouraged his brother Brian in causing Victim's death by beating her and did so after deliberation. The second-degree felony murder instruction, Instruction No. 7, required the jury to find that: Defendant committed first-degree burglary at Victim's home as submitted in Instruction No. 8; Defendant or his brother Brian beat Victim during the burglary; and Victim was killed as a result of the perpetration of the burglary. Finally, Instruction No. 8 required the jury to find that: between November 2nd and 4th of 1984, Defendant or Brian knowingly entered Victim's home; Defendant or Brian did so for the purpose of committing the crime of stealing therein; while Defendant or Brian was in Victim's home, Victim was present therein and was not a participant in the crime; and with the purpose of promoting or furthering the commission of first-degree burglary, Defendant acted alone or Defendant acted together with or aided Brian in committing the offense.

         Three verdict forms were submitted to the jury and the jury could either, (1) find Defendant guilty of first-degree murder as submitted in Instruction No. 5; (2) find Defendant guilty of second-degree felony murder as submitted in Instruction No. 7; or (3) find Defendant not guilty of both crimes.[9] The jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree murder.

         Defendant then filed a motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, or in the alternative, for a new trial ("post-trial motion"), which raised the same arguments discussed at the beginning of this subsection and all but one of the claims he brings in this appeal.[10] The trial court denied Defendant's post-trial motion, entered a judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict convicting Defendant of first-degree murder, and sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without parole. Defendant appeals.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Defendant raises seven points on appeal. In his first point on appeal, Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support his first-degree murder conviction under a theory of accomplice liability. And in his remaining points on appeal, Defendant asserts the trial court erred in making various evidentiary rulings.

         A. Whether there was Sufficient Evidence to Support Defendant's Conviction for First-Degree Murder under a Theory of Accomplice Liability

         In Defendant's first point on appeal, he argues there was insufficient evidence to support his first-degree murder conviction under a theory of accomplice liability. Because Defendant's argument explicitly and inherently challenges the trial court's denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal prior to submission of his first-degree murder charge to the jury, the question of sufficiency is really an issue of whether the charge should have been submitted to the jury. See State v. Myles, 479 S.W.3d 649, 660 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).

         1. Standard of Review

         Appellate review of a claim that there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction is limited to a determination of "whether the [S]tate has introduced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Hosier, 454 S.W.3d 883, 898 (Mo. banc 2015). In making that determination, great deference is given to the trier of fact, and an appellate court will not weigh the evidence anew. State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Mo. banc 2011). Additionally, all evidence and inferences favorable to the State are accepted as true, and all contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded. Id. However, an appellate court "may not supply missing evidence, or give the [S]tate the benefit of unreasonable, speculative or forced inferences." State v. Clark, 490 S.W.3d 704, 707 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181, 184 (Mo. banc 2001) (overruled on other grounds)).

         The State may meet its burden of proof by presenting either direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime. State v. Burns, 444 S.W.3d 527, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). Furthermore, circumstantial evidence is given the same weight as direct evidence in considering whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction. Id. at 528-29.

         2. The Relevant and Admissible Evidence Adduced at Trial

         The following relevant and admissible evidence was adduced at trial.[11] Victim's Granddaughter testified that while she and Defendant's brother Brian were dating in the years prior to Victim's murder, Brian frequently went with Granddaughter to Victim's home and spent time in Victim's kitchen, and it was not unusual for Brian and Granddaughter to eat while they were at Victim's home. Granddaughter also testified that during that same timeframe, Brian became aware Victim kept extra cash in the Calumet can located in the lower kitchen cabinets next to her refrigerator, because Brian saw Granddaughter steal money from the Calumet can when Victim was not looking. Granddaughter also testified she met Defendant around the time she and Brian were dating.

         The 1984 break-in of Victim's house and her murder occurred very shortly after Victim's longtime housekeeper cleaned various areas of Victim's house and kitchen, which Victim always kept tidy. Around the two-day window in which the break-in and murder were committed, Defendant and Brian lived in a home located about one mile away and within walking distance of Victim's home.

         Police discovered a person or persons had gained entry to Victim's home in 1984 by breaking out the glass window on the front door and crawling through that empty space. Several areas of Victim's home were ransacked, including the lower kitchen cabinets next to her refrigerator and the refrigerator itself. The refrigerator door was found open, and lying on the floor in front of the refrigerator were several food items including a piece of cheese with a bite mark taken out of it and an empty single-serve cheese wrapper. In addition, eight nylon stockings were found in Victim's bedroom, and two nylon stockings were found lying outside near the back of Victim's property by an alley.

         In the bedroom, Victim's body was found lying on the floor. Victim, who was elderly and weighed less than one-hundred pounds, had blood and multiple bruises on her face, a split lip, and two broken ribs on each side of her body caused by blunt force. Victim's cause of death was subsequently determined to be repeated blunt trauma, from being beaten multiple times. Nevertheless, Dr. Harding, the pathologist who performed Victim's autopsy, testified he could not determine how many people had beaten Victim. In addition, there was no DNA evidence found in the bedroom which linked Defendant or his brother Brian to Victim's killing.

         However, DNA testing on the empty single-serve cheese wrapper found on the floor of Victim's kitchen revealed the presence of single-source DNA on the wrapper which was consistent with Brian's DNA, and the probability of someone else in the general Caucasian population having the same DNA profile was 1 in 741, 000. In addition, DNA testing on one of the stockings found by the alley near the back of Victim's property revealed the presence of a mixture of DNA consistent with Victim's and Defendant's DNA, and the probability of someone besides Defendant in the general Caucasian population having the same DNA profile was 1 in 6.17 million.

         3. General Law Pertaining to the State's Burden of Proof

         A person commits the crime of first-degree murder if "he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter." Section 565.020.1 RSMo Supp. 1984.[12]"Deliberation" is defined as "cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief[.]" Section 565.002(3). The requirement of deliberation distinguishes first-degree murder from all other forms of homicide. State v. Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496, 514 (Mo. banc 2004).

         Where, as in this case, a defendant is tried for first-degree murder under a theory of accomplice liability, it is not necessary for him to have personally performed each act constituting the elements of the crime or for him to have been present when the victim was killed. State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 497 (Mo. banc 2000); State v. Gray, 887 S.W.2d 369, 377 (Mo. banc 1994). Nevertheless, in order to be responsible for another person's acts, a defendant must have acted together with or aided the other person either before or during the commission of the murder with the purpose of promoting the crime. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d at 497. In addition, the State must prove that the defendant personally deliberated upon the murder. Id. Consistent with those principles, the Missouri Supreme Court has held the State makes a submissible case of first-degree murder under a theory of accomplice liability only if it introduces evidence from which a reasonable juror could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that, (1) the defendant committed acts which aided another in killing the victim; (2) it was the defendant's conscious purpose in committing those acts that the victim be killed; and (3) the defendant committed the acts after he personally deliberated on the victim's death. State v. O'Brien, 857 S.W.2d 212, 216-18 (Mo. banc 1993).

         4. The Missouri Supreme Court's Decision in State v. O'Brien and OtherSubsequent Missouri Supreme Court Precedent

         In State v. O'Brien, the Missouri Supreme Court held the State did not make a submissible case of first-degree murder under the preceding standard where the following evidence was adduced at trial. Id. at 218-20. While the defendant and his roommate Daniel Blount were at a bar, Blount solicited the defendant's help in robbing fellow patron Sanford Wood ("victim"), telling the defendant that, if he would just "lure" the victim outside, Blount would "take care of the rest." Id. at 216 (quotations in original). The defendant agreed, asked the victim to step outside, and all three men left the bar. Id. After the defendant and the victim had a brief conversation, defendant walked away and witnessed Blount pull the victim into a gangway, knock him down, and reach into the victim's pockets. Id. Subsequently, another bar patron found the victim in the gangway, barely alive. Id. The victim later died from blunt force injuries which were consistent with having been inflicted by someone stomping on his head. Id.

         In the meantime, the defendant and Blount both went to a friend's house. Id. Blount announced that he had murdered someone, he displayed some cash he had taken, and his shoes appeared to have blood on them. Id. Blount offered the defendant some of the victim's money, but the defendant refused. Id.

         The defendant was charged with, inter alia, first-degree burglary, first-degree murder, and the lesser-included offense of second-degree felony murder[13] based on the death of victim as a result of defendant's perpetration of first-degree burglary. Id. at 216-17, 220. The jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree burglary and first-degree murder under a theory of accomplice liability. Id. at 217. Defendant appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support his first-degree murder conviction. Id. at 215.

         The O'Brien Court held the State did not make a submissible case as to the second and third elements of a first-degree murder charge based on accomplice liability, because a reasonable juror could not have found or inferred the defendant intended the victim's death or that he coolly deliberated the victim's fate. Id. at 218. In reaching that conclusion, the Missouri Supreme Court found that although an intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon, there was no deadly weapon used to kill the victim under the facts of the case, and the evidence was insufficient to impute any of Blount's alleged intent to the defendant where Blount killed the victim by stomping him to death absent an agreement to kill the victim. Id. The Court also found that while deliberation is ordinarily proved through proof of the circumstances surrounding the killing in cases where the defendant personally caused the death of the victim, "[w]here the defendant is simply an accessory and does not participate in the act of killing, any inferences which may be raised by the manner in which the victim was killed cannot serve to prove the defendant's premeditation." Id. at 218-19.

         Missouri Supreme Court cases handed down after O'Brien expounded upon when deliberation may be inferred in a case where a defendant is tried for first-degree murder under a theory of accomplice liability. In State v. Rousan and State v. Gray, the Supreme Court identified three "highly relevant" circumstances which are properly attributable to such a defendant and may support an inference that he deliberated: (1) "the defendant or [his accomplice] in the defendant's presence made a statement or exhibited conduct indicating an intent to kill prior to the murder"; (2) "the defendant knew that a deadly weapon was to be used in the commission of a crime and that weapon was later used to kill the victim"; and (3) "the defendant participated in the killing or continued with a criminal enterprise after it was apparent that a victim was to be killed." 961 S.W.2d 831, 841 (Mo. banc 1998); 887 S.W.2d at 376-77.

         5. Analysis as to Whether there was Sufficient Evidence Defendant Committed First-Degree Murder under a Theory of Accomplice Liability

         Before discussing the applicability of the previously-discussed precedent to the facts in the case at bar, we must initially acknowledge that the circumstances of this case and the one involving Defendant's brother Brian, also handed down today, are troubling. First, this Court is aware it is possible that retrying the two cases - outcomes we find Missouri Supreme Court precedent dictates for the reasons discussed below and in Brian's case - may present evidentiary challenges for the State because it has been approximately thirty-two years since Victim's murder. Additionally, this Court agrees with the State to the extent it argues there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have inferred someone deliberated before killing Victim because she was beaten to death and died after suffering multiple wounds and repeated blows. See Glass, 136 S.W.3d at 514 (deliberation may be inferred where a victim dies after suffering multiple wounds or repeated blows). Nevertheless, as will be discussed below and in Brian's case, there is no such evidence in either of the cases before us from which a reasonable juror could have found or inferred Defendant or his brother personally committed Victim's murder or personally deliberated in her killing.[14] Because this Court is aware of no other person who was charged with Victim's murder, the result of our cases is that no one may be held accountable for first-degree murder for Victim's killing, though Defendant and/or his brother may be convicted of second-degree felony murder if a jury finds one or both of them guilty of the offense upon retrial.

         Despite those concerns, this Court is bound to follow controlling decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court, which includes O'Brien and its progeny. See Jones v. Galaxy 1 Marketing, Inc., 478 S.W.3d 556, 574 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Those cases are instructive in determining whether the State made a submissible case that Defendant committed first-degree murder on the basis of accomplice liability and specifically whether the State met its burden to show Defendant personally deliberated on Victim's death.

         Here, a reasonable juror could have found or inferred from the relevant and admissible evidence discussed above in Section II.A.2. (including Victim's Granddaughter's testimony, the bite taken out of the cheese, and the DNA evidence relating to the cheese wrapper and the stocking) that: Defendant and/or his brother had a motive to break-in to Victim's house to obtain cash from the Calumet can; in the years prior to the 1984 break-in and murder, Brian was linked to Victim's home and Defendant was linked to Brian and Victim's Granddaughter; Victim was killed during the perpetration of the 1984 burglary of her home; Defendant and Brian lived close to Victim near the time the 1984 crime occurred; and DNA evidence linked Defendant and Brian to Victim's home or surrounding property near the time the 1984 crime occurred.

         However, similar to the circumstances in O'Brien, there was no evidence in this case that Defendant and another person, including Brian, had an agreement to kill Victim, and there was no evidence Defendant personally caused Victim's death. See O'Brien, 857 S.W.2d at 216-19. In fact, the State's respondent's brief in this case concedes, "it is unclear from the evidence in [Defendant's] case whether [Defendant] or his brother personally committed the murder." Also like in O'Brien, no deadly weapon was used to kill Victim; instead, she was beaten to death. See id. at 218. Furthermore, none of the other "highly relevant" circumstances held to be properly attributable to a defendant tried for first-degree murder under a theory of accomplice liability are present in this case. Specifically, there was no evidence Defendant or Brian in Defendant's presence made a statement or exhibited conduct indicating an intent to kill Victim prior to her murder. See Rousan, 961 S.W.2d at 841; Gray, 887 S.W.2d at 376. Nor was there evidence Defendant participated in the killing.[15] See Rousan, 961 S.W.2d at 841; Gray, 887 S.W.2d at 377. Notably, the evidence in this case did not demonstrate at least two people participated in Victim's murder, as she was eighty-four years old and weighed less than one-hundred pounds, and the pathologist who performed Victim's autopsy testified he could not determine how many people had beaten Victim. Finally, there was no evidence Defendant continued with a criminal enterprise after it was apparent that Victim was to be killed. See id. Under these circumstances, we cannot find there was sufficient evidence presented that Defendant personally deliberated on Victim's death. Moreover, such a finding would require us to supply missing evidence or give the State the benefit of unreasonable, speculative, or forced inferences, something which this Court may not do. See Clark, 490 S.W.3d at 707.

         Finally, we address the State's argument that there was sufficient evidence of Defendant's deliberation because Victim was beaten to death and died after suffering multiple wounds and repeated blows. As we previously stated, we do find there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have inferred someone deliberated before killing Victim because of the manner in which she was killed. See Glass, 136 S.W.3d at 514. Nevertheless, the State's argument that the manner in which Victim was killed supports a finding that Defendant deliberated has no merit under the circumstances of this case. As stated in O'Brien, "[w]here the defendant is simply an accessory and does not participate in the act of killing, any inferences which may be raised by the manner in which the victim was killed cannot serve to prove the defendant's premeditation." 857 S.W.2d at 219; see also Glass, 136 S.W.3d at 514 (finding an appellate court may permit an inference of deliberation where there is evidence a defendant committed a murder which required ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.