Robert blurton trial

Charities host 'Eviction Event' to aid Cole County residents during the pandemic. More than , student loan borrowers will get debt relief from Navient Girl dies, 2 adults hospitalized after Kansas City fire Mortgage rates are highest since March Mizzou Football staff changes continue as Aaron Fletcher leaves Supreme Court blocks nationwide vaccine and testing mandate for large businesses, allows health care worker vaccine mandate to take effect.

More than , student loan borrowers will get debt relief from Navient Girl dies, 2 adults hospitalized after Kansas City fire Mortgage rates are highest since March Supreme Court blocks nationwide vaccine and testing mandate for large businesses, allows health care worker vaccine mandate to take effect Jefferson City School District updates COVID protocols, adds mask mandate.

Forecast: Enjoy a quiet Thursday before snow chances this weekend. Forecast: Temps in the mid 50s today; tracking the potential for snow this weekend Forecast: Warmer for the middle of the week before winter weather chances return to end the week Forecast: Warmer mid-week temps; watching a Friday night storm system Forecast: Sunny skies continue through the week Forecast: A cooler Monday, but the trends are mild this week.

Mizzou Football staff changes continue as Aaron Fletcher leaves. Horrific first half sinks MU men's basketball against Arkansas Missouri football's Link, Smith add new roles 4 mid-Missouri high school basketball players nominated to play in McDonald's All American game MLB star pinch hits for local elementary school hurt by staff shortages No.

As Omicron looms, here are 5 ways to ease anxiety. Blurton did not object at all to this first answer.

Because the witness had already stated that the review process made her feel confident in her conclusions, her response to the second question and the grounds for the objection were apparent as soon as the state asked the second question. Accordingly, Mr. The trial court sustained Mr. Accordingly, the trial court did not err. In the only instance in which the trial court overruled his objection, the trial court did not err because the alleged error was unpreserved due to the untimeliness of the objection and because similar testimony had already been admitted without objection.

To preserve this claim of error for appellate review, Mr. Blurton was required to attempt to present this evidence at trial. See id. Each offer of proof was made during a recess soon after each had testified. Each took the stand, and Mr.

Blurton and the state each had an opportunity to question them. She denied these accusations. As is discussed later, Mr. Because Mr. After the daughter testified at trial, Mr. Blurton made an offer of proof of her testimony. Davis, S. This issue is preserved because, regardless of whether Mr. Davis v. Alaska, U. Here, the trial court did not err because Mr. See Davis, U.

To be admissible, evidence must be both logically and legally relevant. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this testimony. Evidence of Threatening Telephone Calls Mr. Blurton never presented these theories of admissibility to the trial court. For an allegation of error to be preserved for appellate review, the error must be presented to or decided by the trial court. Regardless of Mr. The trial court expressly denied the offer of proof for these same reasons.

Accordingly, because these theories of admissibility were decided by the trial court, this issue is preserved. After the friend testified at trial, Mr. The friend did not disclose any information. As noted previously, to be admissible, evidence must be both logically and legally relevant. The proffered testimony was not logically relevant to any material fact at issue in the case at trial.

The trial court ruled that this evidence was not relevant. Additionally, because Mr. Blurton asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his requests for a mistrial after the state inadvertently showed three separate witnesses and the jury graphic crime scene photographs of the victims when the state was calling up photographs on a PowerPoint presentation. Ward, S. A trial court may also grant a mistrial if the evidentiary error is intentionally injected into the trial.

Aguilar, S. One juror also said an expletive. Blurton almost immediately asked the trial court to approach the bench. During the sidebar, the state explained that all of its photographs were organized into a PowerPoint presentation on a laptop computer, which was then displayed on a large television screen in the courtroom.

The state had inadvertently displayed the incorrect photograph when it either typed in the incorrect exhibit number or had typed in a number, did not press enter, then typed in another number. After seeing the photograph, the daughter began to cry while on the stand in view of the jury.

Blurton requested a mistrial, which the trial court denied. Blurton also asked the trial court to grant a recess to allow the daughter to compose herself, which the trial court also denied after asking the daughter if she wanted to take a break and she declined.

The investigator testified that the jury reacted less than it had when the first photograph was inadvertently displayed but that a few of the jurors leaned forward, covered their mouth with their hands, or lowered their heads. The investigator testified that, although there may have been some reaction by the jurors, the reactions were not clearly evident this time.

After this denial, Mr. Blurton requested the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard the photographs. When the trial court agreed to do so, Mr.

Additionally, all of the photographs inadvertently shown either had been or were later admitted into evidence and shown to the jury. Strong, S. Moreover, Mr. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Blurton, this Court is required by section Section First, nothing in the record suggests that the jury recommended the death penalty under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any arbitrary factor.

Blurton had a prior serious assaultive conviction; 2 each murder was committed while he was engaged in the commission of two other murders; and 3 the murders involved depravity of mind and, as a result, the murders were outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman insofar as each victim was bound or otherwise rendered helpless and, therefore, Mr.

Blurton exhibited a callous disregard for the sanctity of all human life. Each of these statutory aggravators was supported in the record. Lastly, Mr. In a factually similar case, the death penalty was imposed when the defendant murdered an elderly victim who had her hands bound, had been shot in the head, and was robbed. Ramsey, S. The death penalty has been imposed when the defendant has rendered his victim helpless before murdering the victim.

Anderson, S. Tisius, 92 S. This Court has affirmed sentences of death in cases when the defendant had one prior serious assaultive conviction. Hosier, S. Sidebottom, S. The death penalty has been imposed when the defendant has murdered more than one person.

Driskill, S. Wolfe, 13 S. Kardesch, S. Mease, S. The death penalty has been imposed when the defendant murdered at least one victim and perpetrated a robbery or burglary. Deck, S. Gilbert, S. Williams, 97 S. After considering all the statutory factors, the imposition of the death penalty for Mr. Conclusion Mr. The trial court did not err in refusing to submit an improper instruction to the jury.

The trial court also did not err in admitting evidence at trial over Mr. The trial court properly admitted testimony regarding the location of the cell phone towers to which Mr.

The trial court sustained three of Mr. The trial court also did not err in excluding evidence at trial. Blurton on the call. Blurton did not offer at trial. Moreover, all of these photographs were later shown to the jury, they were gruesome because the crime was gruesome, and Mr.

An independent review by this Court finds that the record does not show that the death sentences were imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any arbitrary factor. Blurton had a prior serious assaultive conviction, that each murder was committed while he was engaged in the commission of two other murders, and that the murders involved a depravity of mind and, as a result, the murders were outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman.

Moreover, this Court finds that Mr. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. I concur in the principal opinion in all respects, including the principal opinion's explanation that State v. Jackson specifically dealt with "nested" lesser-included offenses, 1 S. The answer, unequivocally, is no.

Because this Court is affirming three death sentences, which will no doubt receive further review by this Court and the federal courts, I write separately to explain that, in my view, the circuit court would not have erred in refusing the second-degree felony murder instruction, even if it were tendered in the form required by the Notes on Use for MAI-CR Regardless, Blurton was not prejudiced by the failure to give a second-degree felony murder instruction.

McLaughlin, S. Factual and Procedural Background Blurton was charged with three counts of first-degree murder for killing his aunt and uncle and their year-old granddaughter. Police found Donnie, Sharon, and Taron Luetjen dead in their home. Each had been shot once in the back of the head. Each was found lying face down on the floor, head on a pillow, and their hands were bound behind their backs.

Donnie's and Sharon's wallets lay empty nearby, and valuable items and change were missing from another room. There was no sign of a forced entry. The State Id. Blurton presented no evidence during the guilt phase of trial. The jury was ultimately instructed, during the penalty phase of trial, to consider whether "the defendant was engaged in the perpetration of robbery.

According to the verdict, the jury found several aggravating factors existed, listing them in writing on the jury verdict form, but it did not find Blurton was engaged in a robbery or, for that matter, any felony it was asked to consider other than murder. In addition to an instruction on first-degree murder, the State requested the circuit court to instruct the jury to find Blurton guilty of second-degree murder if he knowingly caused the Luetjens' deaths without premeditation "conventional" second-degree murder.

The State's request to instruct solely on this particular lesser-included offense was in line with this Court's previous express holdings in McLaughlin, Hall, Kinder, and State v. Had the circuit court given Blurton's proffered, and incorrectly worded, instruction it would have committed error. The circuit court did not, therefore, err in rejecting Blurton's second- degree felony murder instruction.

Slip op. Had Blurton tendered a proper second- degree felony murder instruction, the refusal to give that instruction was in accord with this Court's prior first-degree murder death penalty cases.

The circuit court refused to give the proffered instruction. The circuit court's decision to refuse the second-degree felony murder instruction is in accord with this Court's first-degree murder 2 "As to [Counts I, II, and III], if you do not find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, you must consider whether he is guilty of murder in the second degree.

Second, that [Donnie, Sharon, and Taron] Luetjen [were] shot and killed, and Third, that [Donnie, Sharon, and Taron] Luetjen [were] killed as a result of the perpetration of that robbery in the second degree, then you will find the defendant guilty under [Counts I, II, and III] of murder in the second degree. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder in the second degree under this instruction, but you must then consider whether he is guilty of murder in the second degree under Instruction No.

The jury found Blurton guilty on all three counts and recommended three death sentences, which the circuit court imposed. Blurton appeals directly to this Court, which has jurisdiction. See Mo. Analysis 43F Section An offense is also deemed included within the offense charged when "[i]t is specifically denominated by statute as a lesser degree of the offense 3 The ruling from the bench was as follows: [T]his defendant was not charged with any underlying felony whatsoever.

The tendered instruction picks a felony that the defendant picks, that the State did not charge. The defense, on this tendered instruction, has picked robbery in the second degree. By picking an underlying offense, it is inconsistent with alibi, and I think the defense may be, is maybe allowed to argue inconsistent theories, asserting innocence.

The foreman [sic] [form], which the instruction as tendered, is not the proper -- the facts in evidence in this case do not support that giving of felony murder. More technically -- murder in the second degree, felony. It is also inconsistent with the language that the defense did request with respect to the alibi type information.

This second type of lesser-included offense necessarily requires proof of additional elements, other than the higher offense. As explained in the principal opinion, the circuit court's refusal to give Blurton's second-degree felony murder instruction was not error because it was not in the form required by the Notes on Use for MAI-CR Moreover, neither Blurton, the principal opinion, nor the separate opinion of Judge Draper, cite to a single case in which this Court permitted, let alone required, the submission of a second-degree felony murder instruction based on an uncharged felony.

Furthermore, the jury in this case did not find that the State proved that Blurton was engaged in a robbery or any other felony. McLaughlin, a unanimous decision authored by Judge Stith, is directly on point. In that case, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder, forcible rape, and armed criminal action.

The defendant requested an instruction on second-degree felony murder, based on the rape charge, but the circuit 4 Statutory citations are to RSMo Supp. This Court's opinion states as follows: Mr.

McLaughlin next argues that the trial court erred in submitting only first-degree and conventional second-degree murder and in refusing to also submit second-degree felony murder. He notes that the state argued that he raped the victim in the same incident in which he murdered her and submitted counts of both forcible rape and first-degree murder.

The jury in fact found that Mr. McLaughlin forcibly raped the victim and that he murdered her. Therefore, Mr. McLaughlin argues, the trial court should have submitted felony murder so that he could have argued that if the jury found that he killed the victim in furtherance of the rape, it should convict him of second-degree felony murder rather than first-degree murder. McLaughlin is correct that a trial court is obligated to charge the jury with respect to lesser-included offenses that are supported by the evidence, so as to give it a third choice beyond either acquittal or first- degree murder.

Beck v. Alabama, U. Felony murder is a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder. Conventional second-degree murder is also a lesser- included offense of first-degree murder, however.

Sentencing is scheduled for August 9th. Attorney's for Blurton say the will appeal. The following story was published the shortly after Blurton was charged in the triple homicide: Investigative reports into The Cole Camp Murders allege that someone who listened to the enhanced recording made to the Cole Camp police department, "removed the earphones and said The Leutjens were found bound and shot to death in their home on June 9, The probable cause statement indicates that the last person to see Sharon and Taron Luetjen alive was a woman who had dropped her vehicle off late Sunday evening to be serviced by Donnie Luetjen.