State Vs. Watson, Iii (John) (Death Penalty-Pc) ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                   No. 78780
    Appellant,                                                17 L
    vs.
    JOHN MATTHIAS WATSON, III,
    Respondent.                                                   DEC 3 2021
    Euita      A. BPOWN
    CLE       ikPREUE COURT
    i
    BY
    ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
    This is an appeal from a district court order granting
    appellant's postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth
    Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge.
    Appellant John Watson and his wife, Everilda "Evey" Watson,
    travelled to Las Vegas, Nevada, and while there, Watson killed Evey and
    disposed of her body. A jury convicted him of first-degree kidnapping and
    first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and sentenced him to
    death. This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and death sentence.
    Watson v. State, 
    130 Nev. 764
    , 
    335 P.3d 157
     (2014). Watson filed a timely
    postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the district court
    granted after concluding that trial counsel acted unreasonably by conceding
    Watson's guilt during closing argument when Watson had insisted on
    maintaining his innocence. The State appeals. Because we agree with the
    State that trial counsel did not concede Watson's guilt, we reverse and
    remand.
    The United States Supreme Court has recognimd there are
    circumstances where it may be reasonable for trial counsel to concede a
    client's guilt. See, e.g., Florida v. Nixon, 
    543 U.S. 175
     (2004). "Defense
    Z1-               ``1•C-
    counsel undoubtedly has a duty to discuss potential strategies with the
    defendant." 
    Id. at 178
    . Consequently prudent counsel should explain any
    strategy that approaches a concession.     See 
    id. at 192
     (recognizing that
    counsel should inform the defendant of the strategy he believes is in the
    defendant's best interest); cf. McCoy v. Louisiana, 
    138 S. Ct. 1500
    , 1509
    (2018) (Counsel, in any case, must still develop a trial strategy and discuss
    it with her client, explaining why, in her view, conceding guilt would be the
    best option." (citation omitted)). But "[w]hen a client expressly asserts that
    the objective of 'his defence is to maintain innocence of the charged criminal
    acts, his lawyer must abide by that objective and may not override it by
    conceding guilt." McCoy, 
    138 S. Ct. at 1509
    .
    Here, the district court concluded that Watson's expressed
    objective was to maintain his innocence and that trial counsel conceded
    guilt during closing argument. The State challenges both conclusions. We,
    however, address only the concession issue because our decision on that
    issue is dispositive.'
    Courts generally find a concession of guilt only when it is
    explicit. For example, an attorney concedes a client's guilt by stating that
    the jury should find the client guilty of the charged crime or opining that
    the client is guilty, see, e.g., Francis v. Spraggins, 
    720 F.2d 1190
    , 1193 n.7
    (11th Cir. 1983) CI think he went in the house and think he committed
    the crime of murder probably . . ."), receded from. on other grounds by
    'The State argues that McCoy announced a new constitutional rule
    and does not apply retroactively. We need not address that issue given our
    conclusion that trial counsel did not concede Watson's guilt.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    h 1947A
    Presnell v. Kernp, 
    835 F.2d 1567
     (11th Cir. 1988); People v. Lopez, 
    242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 451
    , 456 (Ct. App. 2019) (I've never disputed it. He's guilty of it;
    he should be punished for it."); People v. Hattery, 
    488 N.E.2d 513
    , 517 (111.
    1985) (recognizing explicit statement that defendant did everything the
    State described in opening statement as concession of guilt), or by
    discouraging the jury from acquitting the client, State v. Matthews, 
    591 S.E.2d 535
    , 539 (N.C. 2004) CI'm not saying you should find [my client] not
    guilty. That's very unusual. And it kind of cuts against the grain of a
    defense lawyer. But I'm telling you in this case you ought not to find him
    not guilty because he is guilty of something."). And although the Supreme
    Court has not explained what counts as "conceding guilt," in McCoy the
    concession was explicit. See McCoy, 
    138 S. Ct. at 1506-07
    . Defense counsel
    told the jury during opening statement "there was 'no way reasonably
    possible that they could hear the prosecution's evidence and reach 'any
    other conclusion than Robert McCoy was the cause of these individuals'
    death"' and "the evidence is unambiguous,"my client committed three
    murders'" and then reiterated during closing argument that his client "was
    the killer." 
    Id.
     While a few courts have found implied concessions of guilt,
    it is only when "a 'reasonable person' viewing the 'totality of the
    circumstances' would conclude that counsel conceded the defendant's guilt."
    Torres v. State, 
    688 N.W.2d 569
    , 573 (Minn. 2004). Under either approach,
    we are not convinced that trial counsel conceded Watson's guilt.
    During closing arguments, defense counsel attacked the
    credibility of witnesses who had testified that Watson openly contemplated
    killing Evey and that Watson and Evey had been arguing. He challenged
    the State's theory that Watson killed Evey and then used power tools to
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    ith 1447A
    dismember her body in the hotel room, pointing out that there had been no
    noise complaints and only a small amount of physical evidence was
    recovered from the hotel room. Given that some forensic evidence was found
    in the hotel room and Evey had not been seen for several years, defense
    counsel acknowledged that Islomething happened in that room" and
    "admittedly something happened to Mrs. Watson." But defense counsel
    nonetheless maintained that the nature and amount of evidence recovered
    from the room did not in-and-of-itself support a conviction for first-degree
    murder with the use of a deadly weapon. Counsel then told the jury, "At
    most — at most, though 1 don't agree entirely, at most, perhaps you have a
    second-degree murder. . . [Old in all candor, I'd like to stand here and say
    you have to find [him] not guilty of murder. Well, I'm not an idiot." Counsel
    continued to argue that the evidence did not support a conviction for first-
    degree murder, "Admittedly, you may very well find him guilty of second-
    degree murder, if and only if, you feel that the circumstantial evidence
    warrants it."
    Counsel did not opine that Watson was guilty or implore the
    jury to find him guilty of any offense. And counsel's acknowledgment of the
    evidence against Watson and the reality that the victim had not been seen
    in four years did not amount to a concession of guilt. See, e.g., United Stales
    v. Williamson, 
    53 F.3d 1500
    , 1511 (10th Cir. 1995) (concluding that
    counsel's acknowledgment that the events that were the subject of the
    prosecution occurred and that some prosecution witnesses were telling the
    truth was not a concession of guilt); People v. Wiley, 
    651 N.E.2d 189
    , 202-03
    (Ill. 1995) (recognizing that admission that defendant may have
    participated in some events that were the subject of the prosecution was not
    4
    a concession of guilt); Commonwealth v. Richards, 
    153 N.E.3d 1226
    , 1248-
    49 (Mass. 2020) (holding that counsel did not concede guilt when he
    admitted defendant's involvement in the homicide as he argued defendant
    was not guilty of first-degree murder); State v. Gainey, 
    558 S.E.2d 463
    , 476
    (N.C. 2002) (concluding that counsel did not concede guilt even though
    counsel admitted defendant was present during crime, involved in events
    attendant to crime, and engaged in other uncharged conduct). Similarly,
    counsel did not concede guilt by discussing second-degree murder as an
    alternative to the top charge of first-degree murder. Cf. State v. Chambers,
    
    955 N.W.2d 144
    , 149-50 (Wis. 2021) (concluding that guiding jury toward
    lesser included offense did not constitute a concession of guilt). Counsel's
    acknowledgement that the jury could find Watson guilty of second-degree
    murder was contingent on the jury finding sufficient circumstantial
    evidence to support that offense, not on counsel's opinion or concession that
    Watson was guilty of that crime. Cf. id. at 151-52 (concluding that counsel's
    statement that jury should consider lesser included offense was restatement
    ofjury instruction and not a concession of guilt); People v. Bell, 
    562 N.Y.S.2d 681
    , 682 (App. Div. 1990) (holding that argument that State rnay have only
    proven at most lesser included offense was not a concession of guilt).
    Indeed, the judge who presided over the trial, who heard and observed
    defense counsel's comments and who then canvassed Watson, stated on the
    record that the defense attorney did not say, nor did he intend to say, that
    Watson was guilty. Moreover, when queried by the court, Watson stated
    that he did not believe that the argument amounted to a concession when
    it was uttered.
    5
    Because counsel's argument did not concede guilt, the district
    court erred in granting relief on this claim. The district court addressed
    only this claim in the petition, concluding that its decision in Watson's favor
    on this claim rendered the other claims moot. On remand, the district court
    should address the other claims in the petition. This order constitutes our
    final disposition of this appeal. Any subsequent appeal shall be docketed as
    a new matter. We therefore
    ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
    REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
    this order.
    Hardesty
    e-k-4-Th'                                                     ,J
    Parraguirre                                 Stiglich
    el.
    Cadish                                      Silver
    cc:   Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Resch Law, PLLC d/b/a Conviction Solutions
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    Or
    NEVADA
    6
    1(11   I447A