At 7:30 a.m. November 7, 2016, a phone call was made to
911.[1] The caller, identified in court documents as
H.P., called 911 to report a disturbance from the night before involving her
son, Derrick Patrick (“Patrick”).[2] Police were dispatched to the family
residence and an investigation ensued.[3] The police investigation explored allegations
of an altercation between Patrick and family members the evening before, but
during the course of the 911 call, another possible altercation arose – this
time between Patrick and H.P.[4] Patrick was charged with third degree
domestic assault, a class A misdemeanor, for an alleged altercation with H.P.
during the phone call she made to 911.[5] A bench trial was held in Boone County,
Missouri, that included the admission of portions of a police officer’s body
camera footage and a recording of H.P.’s 911 call.[6] Patrick was found guilty by the trial court.[7] Patrick appealed the decision to the Missouri
Court of Appeals for the Western District, contending that the trial court
abused its discretion in admitting the 911 call and the police body camera
footage.[8]
I. Facts and Holding
On November 7, 2016, a fourteen-minute call was made to
911.[9] The caller, H.P., asked for police assistance
with her son, Patrick, who she claimed pulled a knife on her grandson the
previous evening and was again being disruptive.[10] She stated that the disturbance was verbal, however,
while on the phone with the 911 operator, H.P. stated that Patrick brought a
butcher knife from a bedroom dresser and placed it in the kitchen dishwasher.[11] H.P. gave a description of Patrick and
complained of his drinking before shouting, “He just threatened my life! He just said he is going to kill me!”[12] In the background a male voice could be heard
saying, “ain’t gonna kill nobody” and “I’m leaving.”[13] Robert Smith of the Columbia Police
Department soon arrived at H.P.’s residence.[14] Officer Smith spoke to H.P. and Patrick
separately to ascertain what happened the evening before.[15] In addition to the officer’s testimony and
portions of the 911 call, portions of body camera footage were used by the
State as evidence.[16]
At trial
Patrick objected to large portions of the 911 call being used as evidence on
the grounds of hearsay and difficulty in authenticating the speakers.[17] Patrick argued that any reference made to the
events of the previous evening on the 911 call should be excluded because they involved
actions not charged in the case.[18] Patrick argued the reference to the previous
night’s incident, also allegedly involving a knife, were not relevant, would be
prejudicial, and were being used as propensity evidence.[19] The State argued that the references to
previous night’s events lent credibility to the threat made by Patrick during
the 911 call, however, the court sustained the objection, and only curtailed
portions of the 911 call were admitted.[20] Patrick also objected to the State’s use of
the body camera footage for the same relevancy grounds.[21]
Officer
Smith’s investigation focused on the previous evening’s altercation.[22] As a result, the trial court admitted only a
small portion of the video that showed Patrick stating, “The reason I
threatened y’all . . . with a knife
is because everybody wants to jump tough on me and I was one versus everybody
else.”[23] While the court did not allow other mentions of
the knife or the previous night’s altercation, the State successfully argued
that the use of the term “y’all” shows that Patrick did threaten H.P. during
her 911 call.[24] Despite only a fifteen second clip initially being
admitted, the State submitted prolonged portions of the video into evidence
after the trial closed by way of post-trial submissions.[25]
Based on
the testimony of Officer Smith, the edited 911 call, and the heavily edited
body camera footage, the trial court sentenced Patrick to a suspended sentence
of thirty days in the county jail and two years of unsupervised probation.[26]
II. Legal Background
There are two relevant legal fundamentals being evaluated
in this case. The first involves what
kind of evidence may be admitted at trial.
Missouri courts have held that evidence of a “separate and distinct
crime[] is not admissible, unless such proof has some legitimate tendency to
directly establish the defendant’s guilt of the charge for which he is on
trial.”[27] Evidence of another crime may be admissible
if it helps to establish, among other things, the defendant’s motive or intent.[28] Courts will look for “logical relevancy” that
tends to prove a fact about the defendant but at the same time tends not to raise
a “legally spurious presumption of guilt . . . .”[29]
When evaluating the admission of evidence, appellate
courts use an “abuse of discretion” standard.[30] Trial courts have “broad discretion” in
evaluating what evidence to admit given their superior position, relative to
appellate courts, to judge the probative value of the evidence against its risk
of creating prejudice against the defendant.[31] The trial court can only be found to have abused
its discretion if its ruling is “clearly against the logic of the circumstances
and is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration.”[32] Further, the appellate court can only reverse
the trial court if its decision to include the evidence affected the outcome of
the trial.[33]
III. Instant Decision
The Western District vacated Patrick’s conviction and
sentence, holding that while the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting the 911 call, it did when it admitted the body camera footage.[34] The court began its analysis by discussing the
911 call. The court noted that H.P.
called to report the argument between Patrick and H.P. from the night before.[35] Only a few minutes touched on the altercation
between H.P. and Patrick during the call itself, so only six minutes of the 911
call were admitted.[36] The court held that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting the call because circumstantial evidence was
sufficient to indicate who the parties on the recording were.[37]
The
court took a different view of the body camera footage. Despite the trial court only admitting a few
seconds of the body camera footage, the State’s post-trial submission to the
court included several heavily edited minutes.[38] Those edits, according to the Western
District, removed context from many of Patrick’s statements and distorted his
interaction with the police.[39] The State even removed H.P.’s statement that
she was not threatened with a knife during the 911 call.[40] Given the proper context, Patrick’s knife
statement directed at “y’all” was made in the course of an investigation about
the previous evening and not about H.P. at all.[41] The court concluded that the “State misstated
the evidence” and nothing in the body camera footage referenced the alleged
threat made during H.P.’s 911 call.[42] Therefore, the body camera footage should
have been excluded and the trial court abused its discretion by admitting it
into evidence.[43]
This
exclusion alone, however, does not warrant a reversal of the trial court’s
verdict if the excluded evidence was not prejudicial.[44] If other “properly admitted evidence supports
the judgment,” Patrick is not entitled to a reversal.[45] The Western District found that nothing in
Officer Smith’s testimony was “[]sufficient by itself to support an inference
that H.P. feared immediate physical harm from Patrick.”[46] In the 911 call the court heard anger and not
fear in H.P.’s voice.[47] The court also emphasized that, when given
the direction to leave the home by the 911 operator, H.P. waited to first affix
her wig.[48] This action, to the court, did not evidence a
person in fear of another. It concluded
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 911 call,
however it did so in admitting the body camera footage.[49] It found, without the body camera, the
remaining evidence was “insufficient to justify the judgement of guilt.”[50] The trial court’s decision was reversed and its
sentence was vacated.[51]
Judge Karen King Mitchell wrote a concurring and
dissenting opinion.[52] Agreeing that the 911 call was admissible,
Judge Mitchell would have also found the body camera footage “both relevant and
admissible.”[53] Patrick argued the camera footage focused on
the previous evening’s altercation and so was irrelevant and highly
prejudicial.[54] Judge Mitchell, referencing the standard or
review, stated, “The trial judge is . . . in the best position to weight the
probative value of the evidence against it prejudicial effect.”[55] Judge Mitchell argued “y’all,” as stated by
Patrick in the footage, clearly referenced more than one person.[56] The determination of who Patrick was talking
about is a factual one and on appellate review must be viewed “most favorable
to the prosecution.”[57] Judge Mitchell would have affirmed the trial
court’s ruling because the record indicated that the trial court interpreted
the “y’all” statement to include a threat against H.P.[58]
IV. Comment
The majority opinion’s analysis is compelling. The body camera footage seemingly provided an
admission by Patrick and supported the trial court’s decision to convict him of
domestic assault. The State’s handling
of the evidence discussed by the Western District also casts a pall on the
proceeding. Not only did the prosecution
heavily edit the body camera footage so as to remove context and injure
Patrick’s image, in post-trial submissions the State
included much more video than was admitted by the court. The Western District makes a reasoned and
well-supported argument that Patrick should have been found not guilty. However, the dissent makes a strong point
regarding the standard of review.
The
trial court is given broad discretion in considering evidence and can only
abuse that discretion if the ruling is “unreasonable” to the point of showing a
“lack of careful consideration.”[59] While the majority opinion, adopting Patrick’s
view of the evidence, is possible (and even probable), that is not enough to
overturn the trial court. The trial
court’s interpretation that Patrick’s use of “y’all” in the body camera footage
referenced H.P., while not a great argument, is not without merit or beyond
reason. The deference given to the trial
court in its evaluation of evidence is great and may not have been overcome in
this case. Further, the trial judge’s
decision, even without the body camera footage, was supported by the 911 call. The interpretation of H.P.’s reactions on the
911 call are subjective and do not demonstrate a lack of deliberation.
-Chris Mathews
[1] State v. Patrick, WD
80777, 2019 WL 121989, at *1 (Mo. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2019).
[2] Id. at *1–2.
[3] Id. at *3.
[4] Id. at *2–3.
[5] Id. at *1.
[6] Id. at *4–5.
[7] Id. at *5.
[8] Id. at *1.
[10] Id. at *2.
[11] Id. at *2.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id. at *3.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. at *1.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id. at *3.
[22] Id. at *11.
[23] Id. at *3. (emphasis added).
[24] Id. at *3.
[25] Id.
[26] Id. at *5.
[27] State v. Shilkett,
204 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Mo. 1947) (en banc).
[28] State v. Reese,
274 S.W.2d 304, 307 (Mo. 1954) (en banc).
[29] Id.
[30] Patrick, 2019 WL 121989, at *1.
[31] State v. Williams,
420 S.W.3d 713, 721 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting State v.
Peal, 393 S.W.3d 621, 625 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)).
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[35] Id. at 1.
[36] Id. at *10.
[37] Id.
[38] Id. at *5.
[39] Id.
[40] Id. at *8.
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Id.
[44] Id. at *9 (quoting Worthington v. State,
166 S.W.3d 566, 573 (Mo. 2005)).
[45] Id.
[46] Id.
[47] Id.
[48] Id. at *10.
[49] Id.
[50] Id. at *7.
[53] Id.
[54] Id.
[55] Id (quoting State v. Peal, 393 S.W.3d
621, 625 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)).
[57] Id.
[58] Id.
[59] State v. Williams,
S.W.3d 713, 721 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Peal, 393 S.W.3d at 625).
