580 S.W.3d 566
Mo.2019Background
- On Feb. 18, 2014 Craig Wood abducted 10-year-old Hailey Owens, who was later found raped, shot at point-blank range (.22), bleached, and stuffed in a tub; Wood was the primary driver of a tan Ford Ranger identified by witnesses.
- Police observed signs of concealment and cleanup (bleach odor, stripped bedding, duct tape, bleach bottles), found Hailey’s clothes in a dumpster with video showing Wood disposing them, and recovered a .22 shell in the basement fired from a .22 rifle in Wood’s gun safe.
- At trial Wood admitted killing Hailey but disputed deliberation; jury convicted him of first-degree murder and unanimously found multiple statutory aggravators (including torture, rape, sodomy, kidnapping, victim rendered helpless, killing to avoid arrest, and random selection).
- The jury deadlocked at penalty; under §565.030.4 the trial court accepted the jury’s aggravator findings, concluded mitigating evidence did not outweigh aggravators, and imposed death.
- Wood appealed raising evidentiary objections (cellphone photos, extensive gun evidence, contents of a folder of writings/photos, victim-impact/community testimony), a closing-argument claim (jury should not be told it "speaks for" the victim/family), a challenge to a juror strike, and constitutional challenges to Missouri’s deadlock procedure under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Hailey’s cellphone photos in guilt phase | Photos relevant to identity, timeline, clothing (ties to clothes later discarded), and absence of pre-abduction injury—probative on deliberation | Photos were cumulative victim-impact evidence with limited relevance and prejudicial | Admitted; relevance to timeline, lack of prior injury, and link to discarded clothing outweighed prejudice; any error harmless given overwhelming evidence of deliberation |
| Admission of extensive gun evidence (many weapons/accessories) | Showed Wood deliberately chose the small .22 (less noise/mess) and hid it—probative on deliberation and choice of weapon | Evidence of unrelated weapons was unfairly prejudicial and suggested propensity for violence; should have been limited | Admitted; court found logical/legal relevance because multiple, larger readily-accessible weapons existed while the .22 was hidden and used; photographs (not actual guns) limited prejudice |
| Prosecutor’s penalty-phase comments that jury would "speak for Hailey/her family" | Framed as part of permissible "send a message" argument about community impact and brutality of the crime | Improperly invited jurors to act on the family's sentencing wishes (categorically inadmissible); prosecutor also excluded contrary family testimony and then implied family wanted death | No plain error; comments viewed in context as permissible community-impact/send-a-message rhetoric and not equivalent to explicit family sentencing recommendations (Bosse distinguished) |
| Constitutionality of §565.030.4 deadlock procedure (Sixth & Eighth Amendments) | Jury had already made the required factual findings (statutory aggravators beyond reasonable doubt); Hurst/Ring require jury find aggravators, not the discretionary weighing; judge may impose death after deadlock | Allowing the judge to resolve deadlock and impose death violates Sixth (jury must find weighing result) and Eighth (fails to narrow death-eligible class and is outlier procedure) | Statute constitutional: Sixth Amendment satisfied because jury made aggravator findings (eligibility); weighing whether mitigators outweigh aggravators and selection (“mercy”) are discretionary, non-factual sentencer judgments; Hurst/Ring do not mandate jury find the weighing/selection; Eighth claim rejected and proportionality upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (establishes aggravating circumstances are elements that must be found by a jury)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (applies Ring to strike a scheme where judge alone found aggravators; limited to jury factfinding for aggravators)
- Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967 (distinguishes eligibility (fact/aggravator) from selection/mercy (discretionary))
- Bosse v. Oklahoma, 137 S. Ct. 1 (victim-family sentencing recommendations inadmissible under Eighth Amendment)
- State v. Shockley, 410 S.W.3d 179 (Mo. banc 2013) (Missouri precedent upholding court imposition of death after jury deadlock where jury made required aggravator findings)
- State v. Whitfield, 107 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. banc 2003) (explained need for record showing jury made required findings; distinguished when judge imposes sentence without jury factual findings)