By the narrowest margin, Kansas Supreme Court justices on Friday ordered new trials for two people convicted of stealing from a disabled Emporia woman and beating her to death.
Marcy Faith Carapezza and Jason Cole Hughes had been convicted in Lyon County District Court on multiple felony charges in July 2005 for the May 2004 beating death of Emporian Marcy Clark, 63.
Mollie Paico, who had worked for Clark, pleaded guilty to lesser charges and became a witness for the prosecution. A fourth person charged in the case, Gail Bennett, was found not guilty.
The basis for the retrial for Carapezza and Hughes, ordered on a 4-3 vote by the Kansas Supreme Court, was that expert testimony from a prosecution witness was prejudicial to the defendants.
Lyon County Attorney Marc Goodman joined the dissenting judges in their opinion.
“Obviously, we are incredulous that they reversed it on expert-witness testimony that we believe assisted the jury in understanding the case,” said Goodman, who prosecuted the case. “But we wait for the mandate and we take them back to trial.”
Carapezza was sentenced to serve life in prison for the murder, 83 months for aggravated robbery, 34 months for aggravated burglary, and 12 months for misdemeanor theft.
Hughes appealed his convictions for felony murder and aggravated burglary. He had been sentenced by Chief Judge Merlin Wheeler to serve life in prison for the murder and 32 months on the burglary conviction. The sentences were to run consecutively, with Hughes serving a minimum of 20 years before he could be eligible for parole or begin earning good-time credit on the murder sentence. He also was ordered to pay $5,457.99 in court costs and restitution.
Paico, who initially was charged with murder in Clark’s death, testified against Carapezza and Hughes in exchange for having the murder charge reduced to three counts of aiding a felon and one count of forgery. Paico was sentenced to 60 months in prison on Jan. 12, 2005. Her earliest release date is Jan. 7, 2009.
Goodman said that the nuances of the decision involved legal theories that are difficult to explain.
“I can’t get it into layman’s terms for you, outside of saying that our expert witness was too prejudicial to the defendant,” Goodman said. “... What they’re saying is that my expert, what he testified to, makes it look like they have a propensity to commit crimes.”
He had been surprised new trials were ordered on those grounds.
“We briefed it, we were prepared for it, but that’s not where we thought it would come from,” he said. “The dissent noted that there was more than sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.”
The prosecution had presented testimony by Dr. Eljorn Don Nelson, an expert on drug addiction, on the use and effects of crack cocaine and the behaviors associated with addiction to crack.
Carapezza argued that the district court erroneously admitted evidence of her drug use and addiction, stating that it was part of an “overall scheme to obtain money for drugs.”
The majority opinion stated that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Carapezza’s drug use was relevant.
The opinion said that the prosecution’s theory was that Carapezza was a crack cocaine addict who was willing to rob and kill Clark to get more drugs.
The opinion stated, however, that Nelson’s testimony “simply provided an expert’s opinion about propensity in order to bolster the state’s theory. That evidence was highly prejudicial, especially when combined with the evidence that Carapezza was addicted to crack,” the majority opinion stated.
“... Because the expert testimony relating to the propensity of cocaine addicts to commit violent crimes was not relevant and because it undermined Carapezza’s right to a fair trial, her convictions must be reversed.”
A similar conclusion was reached in the Hughes appeal.
The majority noted in each case that the district court is to conduct a hearing to determine whether testimony introduced by the prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination.
Testimony in question evolved from an inquisition in which both defendants testified and believed themselves to be immunized from prosecution. The prosecution contended that their testimony during the inquisition was information they already had provided to Emporia police officers and was therefore not new testimony.
A synopsis of the case included in the majority opinion stated that Mary Clark was found dead in her home on May 5, 2004; it described the sequence of events leading up to Clark’s death.
Paico, who had worked part-time for Mary Clark, had misused Clark’s checks and debit card for her own gain, and Carapezza accepted forged checks and also used Clark’s debit card.
When the murder occurred, according to Paico, she had gone to Clark’s house to repay some of the money she had taken, the majority opinion stated.
“When Paico knocked on the door and Clark did not respond, Paico looked in the front window and saw Carapezza and her boyfriend, Jason Hughes, standing over Clark, who was on her knees on the floor,” the opinion stated. “Paico also saw a third person go into the kitchen. ... Paico then went into Clark’s house to find out what was going on and observed Hughes holding a hammer. Paico also saw blood on Clark’s head. ... Clark started to cry and crawl away. ...”
Carapezza began jumping on Clark’s back to prevent her from crawling away, and Paico hit Clark in the head with a hammer several times to make her lie still and stop screaming.
“Paico also shoved a glove into Clark’s mouth to keep her quiet,” the opinion recounted, giving details of how the trio tried to clean the area before leaving. “As they were loading the trash bag, Clark began moving and making noise, so Carapezza shoved the glove back in Clark’s mouth. Paico, Carapezza, and Hughes then returned to their apartments, leaving Clark to die on her floor.”
Carapezza’s appeal was argued by Julia Spainhour of the Northeast Kansas Conflict Office.
Hughes was represented by Randall L. Hodgkinson of the Kansas Appellate Defender Office.
Justices supporting the majority opinion for a retrial in Carapezza’s case were Justice Eric S. Rosen, who wrote the opinion, and Justices Robert E. Davis, Carol A. Beier and Justice Lee A. Johnson. Johnson wrote a separate dissenting and concurring opinion in the Hughes case, in which he disagreed with points on both sides of the court opinions.
The dissenting justices — Justice Marla J. Luckert, who wrote the dissenting opinion, and Justices Kay McFarland and Lawton R. Nuss — disagreed that the admission of the expert’s testimony required reversal of the convictions.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by Happiness08 (anonymous) on August 26, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this account for real!!!! I had to re-read it a few times to make sure I wasn't missing something. So, according to this account Molly Pacio went to the house to repay some of the money she had swindled Mary out of. She peeks in the window, sees somebody standing over the woman holding a hammer, goes into the house and instead of repaying her just hits her in the head a few times with the hammer in order to stop her screaming. And.....the best part of all.....she gets 60 months in jail for the mercy killing. Good job Molly. Apparently it's okay to finish off somebody as long as you aren't the one who started it. Oh yeah, and as long as you will testify against the other two.
Posted by lewisbailbonds (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It really is not going to make a difference,,the outcome will be the same...they are still GUILTY..
Posted by Happiness08 (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That remains to be seen.
Posted by UsayULoveGod (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That is crazy , she is a killer , 60 months , give me a break!
Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on August 27, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm still confused on the prejudicial portion. If A=B, and B=C, then shouldn't A=C?
I thought it was common sense that drug addicts are more likely to do things under the influence of drugs than if they aren't. I also thought it was common sense that if someone is addicted to certain drugs, then they would be more willing to steal in order to pay for their addiction (not saying everyone does it, but if they were broke and needed a 'fix' they would be more likely). So since the expert witness testified to common sense and then it was proven that the one was a crack addict, that means the jury is not allowed to connect the dots? That is somehow unfair? Unfair to whom? How about the poor woman who was beat to death? Or her family? Ridiculous!
Posted by digitaltwister (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To get a clearer understanding here are the actual rulings from the Supreme Court:
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinio...
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinio...
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 30, 2008 at 1:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The judicial system plays with people's lives with nary a thought about the impact on families. I served on a jury more than 10 years ago, and I won't mention any judge by name, but it was very obvious that he cared not a whit about the case or the people involved. He was totally bored with it all. If he was that bored over 10 years ago, imagine how he must be today. That's how we get results like this.
Posted by digitaltwister (anonymous) on August 31, 2008 at 9:47 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by digitaltwister (anonymous) on December 11, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We are now on the cusp of the trials beginning on Dec 17 with initial motions from the defense. Let's hope that justice prevails with the proceedings.
Digi
Posted by lilan (anonymous) on March 29, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I used to know Mollie. I just found out about all of this. I am so glad that I left emporia years ago. This case is a prime example of how crooked the law enforcement is there. They really messed the murder case up.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)