STATE OF MISSOURI v. STEVEN RAY ENDSLEY

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 29, 2023
• Docket: SD37572
• Status: Published

Opinion

In Division

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent, ) No. SD37572 ) v. ) Filed: June 29, 2023 ) STEVEN RAY ENDSLEY, ) ) Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LACLEDE COUNTY

Honorable Kenneth M. Hayden, Judge

AFFIRMED

Steven Ray Endsley ("Endsley") appeals the trial court's judgment convicting him of two

counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of second-

degree arson, following a bench trial.1 Endsley raises three points on appeal. In point 1, Endsley

argues the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his hearsay objection to an out-of-court

statement made by Endsley's son, Matthew Endsley ("Matthew"), because the statement did not

qualify as an excited utterance.2 In points 2 and 3, Endsley argues there was insufficient

evidence to support his convictions of murder in the first degree for the deaths of Teresa

1 See §§ 565.020, 571.015, and 569.050. All statutory citations are to RSMo (2016). 2 We refer to members of Endsley's family by their first name to avoid confusion. No disrespect or familiarity is intended. Jackson ("Jackson") and her daughter, Danielle Smith ("Smith") (collectively, "Victims").

Finding no merit in Endsley's points, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural Background3

During the early morning hours of August 29, 2016, the remains of Victims were

discovered in their burnt trailer home on Floyd's Road. Prior to the fire, Victims were stabbed

multiple times.4 The medical examiner determined both Victims died from stab wounds rather

than from the fire.

Victims' trailer home was less than 40 feet from Endsley's trailer home at the end of

Floyd's Road, a dead-end street.5 Endsley and Victims had a history of conflict, beginning in

November 2015.6 On August 28, 2016, the day before Victims were murdered, the conflict

between Endsley and Victims had escalated. That afternoon, Smith sent a text message to a

friend describing the conflict between Endsley and Jackson saying "I'm sitting on porch waiting

because [Jackson's] being a bitch and dude in his garage talking crap, staring and shit. LOL.

WTF. Over." Smith later sent another text stating Jackson was screaming out the door at

Endsley. That same afternoon, Endsley told the trailer park manager that he would burn down

Victims' trailer home, if he thought he could get away with it.

That evening, Jackson called Smith and told her to come home because Endsley was

harassing her, shining a green laser light into her home, and screaming that his wife wants to

"beat [her] fucking ass." Smith arrived home around 11:30 p.m. At about 11:35 p.m., Smith

texted a friend, "And she's making this neighbor situation worse by screaming out the door."

3 The evidence is summarized in the light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Stewart, 560 S.W.3d 531, 533 (Mo. banc 2018). 4 Smith had five stab wounds to her chest, in the area of her ribs. Jackson had two stab wounds to her

back. 5 Endsley's wife, ("Michelle"), and Matthew, lived in the trailer home with Endsley. Endsley's other son,

("Michael"), also lived in a mobile home in the same trailer park. 6 Beginning in November 2015, the Endsleys began having "issues" with Victims. The police were called

to the trailer park on several occasions regarding altercations between the Endsleys and Victims. In July 2016, Smith posted a video to Facebook, which showed Endsley arguing with Smith, and Endsley saying, "she's a faggot and she's an abomination."

2 Soon after that, Smith began posting on Facebook requesting "major lawyer advice" to assist her

with the "neighbor situation," which was escalating.

Smith then posted comments to Facebook describing the conflict with Endsley,

mentioning "he threatens and everything else, too." At 12:10 a.m., Endsley left a voicemail for

Smith which said he was "glad [Smith was] recording everything." He didn't think the

recordings would "get [her] anywhere now." "We've got a new sheriff in town, and guess what?

I coached his son for three years in football[,]" and Smith should "just move." At 12:23 a.m.,

Endsley texted Smith, "No dikes or faggots." One minute later, Endsley texted "Move" and

"Bipolar lesbos" to Smith. At 12:34 a.m., Smith posted to Facebook "Now he prank calling,

texting, FML. More evidence, though. Calling me a faggot." Two minutes later, Smith posted

her last comment on Facebook, and then all messaging and posting activity stopped. Around

that same time, Endsley's messages and voicemails to Smith also stopped.7

At 2:19 a.m., surveillance footage from local businesses showed Endsley's van and

Smith's car leaving Floyd's Road together. Endsley's van returned around 3:30 a.m., but Smith's

car never returned and was later discovered abandoned along a secluded road in a different

county.

At about 4:30 a.m., Endsley called his sister to tell her that he was coming to visit her,

even though she lived four hours away and he had not seen her in several years. Endsley left

Floyd's Road again just before 5:00 a.m.

At approximately 5:00 a.m., Endsley's wife, Michelle, woke up the trailer park manager

to tell her Victims' trailer was on fire. The trailer park manager saw the fire and told Michelle,

"Your fucking husband did this. Your fucking husband did this. I know he did it. Where is the

van? Where is [Endsley]? Where is [Endsley]? Where's [Endsley]?" Endsley was the only

7 Endsley's next text was sent to Matthew around 1:30 a.m. and said, "Bring shine." Endsley made his own "moonshine" on his property. 3 family member missing from the scene while the trailer was burning.8 At 5:02 a.m., a 911 call

was made to report the fire.

Within ten minutes of the 911 call, the fire department arrived. The intensity of the fire

made it difficult to extinguish. The trailer park owner, Timothy Davis ("Davis"), arrived at the

scene at approximately 5:30 a.m. Davis could see inside the trailer and saw "the top of

somebody's head[,]" including the "skull with the hair burned up." Matthew left his trailer and

stood about an arm's length away from Davis. With tears in his eyes, Matthew turned to his

brother, Michael, who was also standing there, and said, "This didn't have to happen. He didn't

have to do this." Michael grabbed Matthew by the arm, and told him to "shut up and get in the

truck[.]" Matthew started crying, and Michael then "pulled [Matthew] over and pushed him in

the – into the truck and slammed the door and said, 'We're going to work.'"

Investigators determined the fire was intentionally set, and had been started from inside

the trailer, close to the center of the house where Victims' bodies were located. Liquid pour

patterns at the scene indicated two chemical accelerants were used to set the fire: gasoline and

one other accelerant which was unidentifiable due to how long and hot the fire burned. Inside

the trailer, detectives found remnants of two knives located "in a place that you wouldn't

normally have knives[.]" The fire destroyed any trace evidence that might have been on the

knives.

Meanwhile, Endsley traveled to his sister's house, and arrived around 10 a.m. Endsley

had moonshine in the van and was drunk. After arriving at his sister's home, Endsley called

Michelle using his brother-in-law's cell phone.

Detectives decided to contact Endsley at his sister's house. While en route to the house,

detectives came up behind a Mustang owned by the Endsleys; Michelle was driving and

8 Later that morning, Endsley texted Michelle, "All good?" to which Michelle responded, "Yeah, just sick

to my stomach." Endsley then replied, "Hang tough." 4 Matthew was in the passenger seat. The two were on their way to meet Endsley with clothes for

him.

Detectives arrived at Endsley's sister's residence and spoke with Endsley. Endsley told

officers he knew they were there to discuss the trailer fire and that he had already contacted his

attorney. Endsley told detectives he did not have a cell phone. Officers searched Endsley's van

and found several mason jars of moonshine and several knives. Multiple knives were also

recovered from Endsley's garage.

Endsley was arrested for Victims' murders. While in jail, Endsley made phone calls to

Michelle, which were recorded. In one call, Endsley told Michelle he should have gotten more

help for his head. Michelle agreed, saying "Something's not right." Endsley then said it was too

bad he would not know his grandson. In another call, Endsley said if the police had taken Smith

and Jackson to jail earlier, they would have gotten the hint to "stop fucking around."

Endsley was found guilty by the trial court of the charged offenses and was sentenced to

life without parole for each count of first-degree murder, 20 years' imprisonment for each count

of armed criminal action, and seven years' imprisonment for the arson charge, with each

sentence to run consecutively to each other. Endsley appeals from that judgment in three

points. For ease of analysis, we address Endsley's points out of order.

Points 2 and 3—Sufficiency of the Evidence

Endsley argues there was insufficient evidence to prove he committed the murders of

Jackson (point 2) and Smith (point 3).9 We disagree.

Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is "limited to whether the State has

introduced adequate evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could have found each

9 A person commits the crime of first-degree murder if "he or she knowingly causes the death of another

person after deliberation upon the matter." § 565.020.1. Endsley does not dispute the State's evidence was sufficient to show Victims were murdered. Rather, his argument challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to show he was the person who committed the murders.

5 element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624, 632

(Mo. banc 2016). "All evidence and inferences favorable to the State are accepted as true, and all

evidence and inference[s] to the contrary are rejected." State v. Porter, 439 S.W.3d 208, 211

(Mo. banc 2014). "Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction when there is sufficient

evidence from which a reasonable [fact-finder] might have found the defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt." State v. Shaw, 592 S.W.3d 354, 357 (Mo. banc 2019) (quoting State v.

Clark, 490 S.W.3d 704, 707 (Mo. banc 2016)). We defer to the fact-finder's superior position to

weigh and value the evidence, determine the witnesses' credibility and resolve any

inconsistencies in their testimony. State v. Soliben, 621 S.W.3d 585, 590 (Mo. App. S.D.

2021).

Endsley argues the State failed to prove he committed the murders because there was

only circumstantial evidence which established no more than a motive, an intent, and an

opportunity to commit the crimes. This argument fails because: (1) the evidence, and the

reasonable inferences therefrom, established more than just an intent and an opportunity to

commit the crimes and (2) the State may satisfy its burden of proof by presenting circumstantial

evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime.10 State v. Mills, 623 S.W.3d

717, 724 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021).

Here, the evidence was sufficient for a rational fact-finder to conclude, beyond a

reasonable doubt, that Endsley committed the murders. Endsley and Victims had an extensive

history of conflict. On the evening before and morning of the homicides, Smith texted her friend

about the tension between Jackson and Endsley, and Endsley told the trailer park manager he

10 "Circumstantial evidence is evidence which does not directly prove a fact in issue, but gives rise to a

logical inference that the fact exists." State v. Howery, 427 S.W.3d 236, 245 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (quoting State v. Fitzgerald, 778 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989)). As long as the evidence meets the minimal appellate standard required by due process, an appellate court need not disturb the result simply because the case depended on circumstantial evidence. State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 406 (Mo. banc 1993).

6 would burn down Victims' trailer if he thought he could get away with it. While Smith was out,

Jackson texted Smith to return home because Endsley was harassing her and screaming at her.

Around midnight, Smith made several posts about the issues she was having with Endsley.

Endsley then sent Smith texts calling her derogatory names and telling her to move. Around

12:30 a.m., Smith made her last post and quit sending messages. Around that same time,

Endsley stopped calling and texting Smith. Later that morning, Endsley's van was caught on

surveillance leaving Floyd's Road, followed by Smith's car. Endsley's van returned, but Smith's

car was later found abandoned in a neighboring county. At 4:30 a.m., Endsley called his sister,

who lived almost four hours away, and told her he was coming to visit, even though he had not

seen her in years. Endsley left for his sister's house around 4:50 a.m., and by 5:00 a.m.,

Victims' trailer was engulfed in flames. When officers contacted Endsley at his sister's house,

Endsley said he knew the officers were there to speak to him about the trailer fire and told the

officers he did not have a phone. While in jail, Endsley made incriminating statements in

recorded phone calls to Michelle, including that he should have gotten help for his head and that

if the police had arrested Victims during previous altercations, maybe Victims would have gotten

the hint to "stop fucking around." While no piece of this evidence in isolation may have been

sufficient, the totality of this evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find Endsley guilty of

both counts of first-degree murder. Points 2 and 3 are denied.

Point 1—Overruling the Hearsay Objection

Endsley argues the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his hearsay objection to

the admission of Matthew's statement, "This didn't have to happen. He didn't have to do this."11

The State argues Matthew's statement fell under the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay

rule. We agree with the State.

11 This statement was admitted as evidence through the deposition transcript of the trailer park owner,

Davis. In his deposition, Davis described the scene and testified he heard Matthew make the statement. Davis died prior to trial. 7 We review a claim that hearsay was improperly admitted for an abuse of discretion.

State v. Perkins, 656 S.W.3d 285, 302 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022). The trial court has broad

discretion to admit or exclude evidence during a criminal trial, and error occurs only when the

trial court clearly abuses that discretion. State v. Wood, 580 S.W.3d 566, 574 (Mo. banc

2019). A trial court abuses that discretion when a ruling is clearly against the logic of the

circumstances and is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration. State v.

Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Mo. banc 2006). "An abuse of discretion occurs when a

defendant is prejudiced such that 'there is a reasonable probability that the outcome at trial

would have been different if the error had not been committed.'" State v. Minor, 648 S.W.3d

721, 732 (Mo. banc 2022) (quoting State v. Holmsley, 554 S.W.3d 406, 410 (Mo. banc 2018)).

Generally, hearsay evidence is both undesirable and inadmissible because the maker of

the offered statement is neither under oath, nor subject to cross-examination, nor subject to the

fact-finder's ability to judge the demeanor at the time the statement is made. State v. Link, 25

S.W.3d 136, 145 (Mo. banc 2000). However, such statements may be admissible if they fall

within a recognized exception to the rule. State v. Kemp, 212 S.W.3d 135, 146 (Mo. banc

2007). The excited-utterance exception is one such exception. State v. Gott, 523 S.W.3d 572,

577 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017).

"The excited-utterance exception applies to statements made following a startling or

unusual occurrence sufficient to overcome normal reflection, such that the ensuing declaration

is a spontaneous reaction to the startling event." State v. Robinson, 535 S.W.3d 761, 766

(Mo. App. E.D. 2017). "The essential test for admissibility of a spontaneous statement or excited

utterance is neither the time nor place of its utterance but whether it was made under such

circumstances as to indicate it is trustworthy." Gott, 523 S.W.3d at 577 (quoting State v. Van

Orman, 642 S.W.2d 636, 639 (Mo. banc 1982)). "Because the statement is spontaneous and

made under the influence of events, the statement is assumed trustworthy because it is

8 unadorned by thoughtful reflection." Kemp, 212 S.W.3d at 146 (quoting Bynote v. Nat'l

Super Mkts., Inc., 891 S.W.2d 117, 122 (Mo. banc 1995)). This exception is grounded in:

the human experience that, under certain external circumstances of physical shock, a stress of nervous excitement may be produced which stills the reflective faculties and removes their control, so that the utterance which then occurs is a spontaneous and sincere response to the actual sensations and perceptions already produced by the external shock.

State v. Post, 901 S.W.2d 231, 234 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (internal quotations and citation

omitted). In deciding if the excited-utterance exception applies, courts consider:

[1] the time between the startling event and the declaration, [2] whether the declaration is in response to a question, [3] whether the declaration is self- serving, and [4] the declarant's physical and mental condition at the time of the declaration. While no one factor necessarily results in automatic exclusion, all should be considered in determining whether the declaration was the result of reflective thought.

Gott, 523 S.W.3d at 577 (quoting Bynote, 891 S.W.2d at 122).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the out-of-court statement made

by Matthew that "This didn't have to happen. He didn't have to do this." First, the duration

between the startling event (viewing the smoldering remains of the trailer and observing

Victims' burned bodies) and Matthew's statement, was brief. Matthew made the statement

immediately after walking up to the scene, suggesting the statement was made in reaction to the

emotional stress of seeing his neighbors' destroyed home and burned bodies. Second,

Matthew's statement was voluntary and not in response to any question. No one had been

speaking to Matthew when he made the remark. Third, the statement was not self-serving. In

the context of a criminal case, whether a statement was self-serving focuses on exculpatory

statements by a defendant that are the result of reflective thought. Id. at 578. While Matthew is

not a defendant, the statement serves no self-interest, and actually cuts against any personal

interest he may have had in protecting his father. Finally, Matthew was visibly distraught when

he made the statement. He had tears in his eyes and eventually started crying. These factors

support the conclusion that Matthew's statement was spontaneous and made under the

9 influence of observing a tragic and unusual event and was not the product of reflective thought.

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Matthew's statement

pursuant to the excited-utterance exception.12 Point 1 is denied.

Conclusion

The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

BECKY J.W. BORTHWICK, J. – CONCURS

GINGER K. GOOCH, J. – CONCURS

12 Furthermore, given the ample (albeit circumstantial) evidence of Endsley's guilt, there is no reasonable

probability that the admission of the statement was outcome determinative. 10