State of Missouri v. David Russell Hosier
454 S.W.3d 883
| Mo. | 2015Background
- Two victims (Angela and Rodney Gilpin) were found shot to death in their apartment hallway; Angela (Victim) had an application for a protective order against David Hosier on her person.
- Neighbors, landlord, and a former employer reported Hosier had threatened/stalked Victim and made menacing voicemail messages the night before the killings.
- Police obtained a § 2703(d) ping order to locate Hosier’s cell phone, tracked him to Oklahoma, and an Oklahoma officer attempted a traffic stop; Hosier fled in a car chase and was stopped later.
- Oklahoma police executed a warrant on Hosier’s car and recovered 15 firearms (including the murder weapon), ammunition, a bulletproof vest, knives, two incriminating notes, and cell phones.
- Missouri police executed a warrant on Hosier’s apartment and found 9mm ammunition, an empty box of 9mm shells, and a STEN machine‑gun schematic.
- Hosier was convicted of first‑degree murder, armed criminal action, first‑degree burglary, and being a felon in possession of a firearm; jury recommended death. Court of Appeals consolidated issues on suppression, admissibility, sufficiency, authentication, and proportionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence from car traced by ping order | Ping order was lawful under §2703(d); evidence admissible | Ping order was a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause; evidence is fruit of poisonous tree | Even assuming illegality, flight, intervening chase, and independent probable cause purged taint; evidence admissible |
| Whether Hosier was seized when Oklahoma officer activated lights | Officer’s activation was not a seizure; Hosier fled and later submitted | Hosier was seized by activation of lights and initial stop lacked probable cause | Hodari D. controls; no seizure until Hosier stopped; fleeing created probable cause for stop; stop lawful |
| Probable cause for apartment search warrant | Affidavit corroborated by multiple informants and physical scene; probable cause existed | Affidavit insufficiently detailed (unnamed informant, timing, contents) | Totality of circumstances provided probable cause; warrant properly issued |
| Admissibility of Victim’s statements (protective order, landlord letter) | Statements show stalking/threats and are admissible under forfeiture by wrongdoing | Statements are testimonial hearsay barred by Confrontation Clause | Forfeiture by wrongdoing (Giles/McLaughlin) applies; Victim’s statements admissible |
| Admissibility of photos of other guns/ammo from car | Photographs are probative of flight and consciousness of guilt | Other weapons are unduly prejudicial and not tied to the crime | Weapons were found during immediate flight, probative of guilt; probative value outweighed prejudice; admission proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree burglary | Entry and unlawful presence proven by landlord ban and victim’s location; intent to commit murder shown by conduct | Lack of forced entry and possible invitation undermines burglary element | Evidence supported unlawful entry and intent; conviction sustained |
| Authentication of incriminating note found in car | Circumstantial links (continuous flight, similar paper/note left earlier, content consistent) authenticated the note | No direct proof Hosier authored the note; hence inadmissible hearsay | Circumstantial evidence sufficed to authenticate; note admissible |
| Proportionality of death sentence | Aggravators proved; murder of two victims and prior assault convictions justify death | (Hosier challenged proportionality) | Independent review found aggravators supported and sentence not disproportionate; death sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (acknowledging doctrine of purging primary taint)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (three‑factor test for attenuation of taint)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (seizure occurs on submission to authority or physical force)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (objective test for whether a person is seized)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine and intent to prevent testimony)
- State v. McLaughlin, 265 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. banc applying forfeiture by wrongdoing in domestic‑violence context)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality of the circumstances test for probable cause to issue warrants)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay and confrontation clause)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishing emergency statements from testimonial declarations)