This post examines a recent opinion from the Missouri Courtof Appeals – Western District: State v.
McElroy, 2017 WL 2332760 (2017). The court begins the opinion by explaining
that “Jerome McElroy appeals the trial court's judgment, following a jury
trial, convicting him of first-degree robbery (§ 569.020, [Revised Statutes of
Missouri]) and armed criminal action (§ 571.015).” State v. McElroy, supra.
The Court of Appeals goes on to explain how, and why, the
prosecution arose:
The evidence at McElroy's trial showed
that two men entered a Little Caesar's pizza restaurant on May 24, 2014, while
manager April Bell was counting the money in a cash register. Bell saw that one
of the men was carrying a gun, so she quickly closed the register. Bell
testified that she could see both men's faces. She stated that the gunman, whom
she later identified as McElroy, had `a little bit’ of facial hair, and she
particularly noticed `his eyes and his size.’
Bell told the jury that McElroy jumped
over the counter, put a gun to the back of her head, and told her to open the
register. Bell complied. McElroy then pulled her to the other register,
demanded the money from it, and threatened to shove the gun into her head
harder unless she gave him the money immediately. After Bell opened the second
register, McElroy ordered her to open the safe. She told him that it was on a
time lock and she could not open it. McElroy jumped back over the counter,
and the two men ran out the door. Bell called the police.
Detective Anthony Castelletto reviewed
the store's surveillance video.3 He
saw that the robbers were not wearing gloves and had touched certain areas that
an ordinary customer would not touch. Castelletto asked a crime scene
technician to dust those areas for fingerprints. Four of the recovered prints
were matched to McElroy: one was lifted from the counter between the cash
registers; the other three were taken from the glass on the upper portion of a
door.
The next day, police arrested Charles
Harris, who was riding in the passenger seat of a vehicle that matched the
description of one used in the robbery. The police received information from
Harris about a suspect who went by `JJ.’ Officer Johnathon Dawdy searched
social media accounts and found a Facebook page
for someone named `JJ da guy.’ He compared a picture of McElroy to pictures on
the Facebook page and
confirmed that McElroy was `JJ da guy.’ The photos on the Facebook page showed a tattoo
that said `RIP Kevin’ and covered nearly the entire top of McElroy's right
hand. Dawdy testified that he had seen the same tattoo on one of the robbers in
the Little Caesar's surveillance video. Detective Castelletto also concluded
that the same tattoo was depicted in both the video and the Facebook photos.
State v. McElroy,
supra.
The Court of Appeals also notes that,
[u]pon arresting McElroy, Officer Dawdy
could see that he was the same person identified on Facebook as `JJ da guy.’ Dawdy
also noticed that McElroy had the same tattoo on his right hand that he had
seen on the Facebook page
and on the surveillance video.
April Bell identified both Harris and
McElroy from photo line-ups. She identified McElroy as the gunman, and she
stated at trial that she was absolutely sure of her identification. Bell also
made an in-court identification of McElroy. She told the jury that there was no
doubt in her mind that he was the man who held a gun to her head.
State v. McElroy,
supra.
The Court of Appeals went on to explain that
McElroy did not present any evidence.
During closing argument, defense counsel reminded the jurors of McElroy's `very
large ornate and dark tattoo on his right hand’ that they had seen in one of
the Facebook photos.
She urged the jury to ask to see everything that had been admitted into
evidence (which the jury did), and she proposed that the video and the stills
from it would not show
a tattoo on the gunman's hand. Counsel also asserted that, if Bell's
identification of McElroy was wrong, then the State did not have any evidence.
The jury found McElroy guilty of first-degree robbery
and armed criminal action. The court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms
of twelve years and three years, respectively.
State v. McElroy,
supra.
The Court of Appeals then took up the arguments McElroy made
in appealing his conviction, beginning with this issue:
McElroy contends that the circuit court
plainly erred in allowing evidence obtained from the Facebook page to be presented at
trial and in permitting the State to elicit testimony about and argue that
the Facebook profile
of `JJ da Guy’ connected McElroy to Harris and to the Little Caesar's robbery,
`because the ownership and identity of the Facebook page was not properly authenticated.’
At no point during the trial did
McElroy's defense counsel dispute that the `JJ da guy’ Facebook page belonged to McElroy or that he was depicted in
the photos on that page. In fact, during a bench conference on an unrelated
motion in limine, defense counsel told the court that, as part of
her trial strategy, she intended to elicit testimony about he Facebook page to
discredit Harris's identification of the owner of that page as one of the
robbers.
State v. McElroy,
supra.
The opinion then explains that
[d]uring Officer Dawdy's testimony, he
stated that, based on information from Harris about a suspect who went by the
name `JJ,’ he discovered a Facebook page
for a person named `JJ da guy.’ Dawdy told the jury that he then compared a
photo of McElroy to photos posted on JJ da guy's Facebook page and determined that McElroy and JJ da guy were
the same person.
When the State sought to admit
those Facebook photos
as State's Exhibits 13-15, defense counsel asked to approach the bench, and the
following discussion ensued:
[Defense Counsel]: `Judge, I'm going to
object to these pictures being introduced into evidence, because there is
hearsay all over them. These are actually Facebook page, like stills that have been taken and printed
off of the computer. I
mean, there's writing on here. I haven't read everything, but it is not just a
picture. So I'm going to object to the hearsay that is included in the
photographs.’
THE COURT: `So you're okay with the
photos, just not some of the words?’
[Defense Counsel]: `Right, right.’
The prosecutor offered to use other
photos from the Facebook page
that did not include any words, and defense counsel stated that that would
resolve her objection. Officer Dawdy then identified State's Exhibits 17, 18,
and 19 as photos of McElroy and of the tattoo on his right hand. Defense
counsel stated, `No objection,’ when the photographs were offered into
evidence. The court admitted the exhibits, and they were published to the jury.
State v. McElroy,
supra.
Having explained how the issue of the Facebook photos arose,
the Court of Appeals went on to explain that
[t]he prosecutor offered to use other
photos from the Facebook page
that did not include any words, and defense counsel stated that that would
resolve her objection. Officer Dawdy then identified State's Exhibits 17, 18,
and 19 as photos of McElroy and of the tattoo on his right hand. Defense counsel
stated, `No objection,’ when the photographs were offered into evidence. The
court admitted the exhibits, and they were published to the jury.
State v. McElroy,
supra.
The Court of Appeals went on to explain that
[g]enerally, we review a trial court's
admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Blair,
443 S.W.3d 677, 682 (Mo. App. 2014). Where there was no objection to the
admission of the evidence, our review, if any, is for plain error only. Id.
citing State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727, 753 (Mo. en banc 2012)). Rule 30.20 authorizes
this Court, in its discretion, to review `plain errors affecting substantial
rights . . . when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of
justice has resulted therefrom.’ Here, McElroy concedes that he failed to
preserve this claim and asks this Court to review it for plain error.
We decline to do so. McElroy has waived
review of any claim of error related to the admission
of this evidence. See State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561,
582 (Mo. banc 2009). Plain error review is waived when counsel has
affirmatively acted in a manner that precludes a finding that the failure to
object was due to `inadvertence or negligence.’ Id. `Plain error
review does not apply when a party affirmatively states that it has no
objection to evidence an opposing party is attempting to introduce or for a
trial strategy reason.’ Id.; State v. Goers, 432 S.W.3d
276, 282 (Missouri Court of Appeals 2014) (a statement of `no objection’
when evidence is introduced `affirmatively waives’ plain error review of its
admission). Here, defense counsel stated `no objection’ to the admission
of the Facebook photographs,
and she told the court that she intended to use testimony about the Facebook page as part of her
trial strategy. Defense counsel's strategic decision not to object to the Facebook evidence and her affirmative
statement that she had `no objection’ to the admission of the Facebook photographs
constituted a waiver.
Accordingly, McElroy has waived his
claim that the Facebook evidence
was improperly admitted. In any event, this is not a case where we would
exercise our discretion to conduct a plain error review.
We affirm the circuit court's judgment.
State v. McElroy,
supra.
No comments:
Post a Comment