Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #98

[mom2chloe]

Sometimes in a dream state I think if Barry was given a lesser sentence that included being barred for life from weapons and women, could he make it?

Denying Barry access to any future firearms and other weapons would be a win. IMO The fact that Barry doesn’t like to play by the rules tells me he would never abide by those conditions. NEVER! He has already in his own words proven that he is a non law abiding citizen. This is IMO part of what makes him scary and his choices risky to not only humans but every animal on the face of the planet.

 

[CGray123]

I'm confused about something - if Domestic Violence was an enhancer then yes, I'm thinking that is off the table now. But I'm not seeing the connection to the murder charge and the activities of May 9 and 10 which is what the case is essentially about. Seems to me that if DV were situational to the charges, the charges would not be murder 1. But I'm not seeing the connection of verbal, financial or physical abuse to proving that Barry murdered his wife and since it isn't a charge I'm not sure how it "fits" into the trial. Suzanne had grievances that were written by her, but not much more in my opinion. They argued by text about finances and divorce. She said she was afraid, but never said of what - getting her finances cut off, getting kicked out of the house, getting dropped from the medical insurance...it doesn't say she was afraid Barry would be violent. The teen said they had arguments but the implication was that they were the type of arguments a couple on the verge of divorce might have. I agree that Barry threatening to kill himself or jump out of a moving car indicate he has anger...and while that is manipulative and is abusive in a relationship it doesn't say he'd kill her....it says he'd kill himself. I have to admit, if my H ever took a swing at me I'd be gone in a second...forever, but I've also known couples where both were physical in heated arguments and we have nothing tangible about how they argued for prosecution to use. I'm alittle challenged on the description of controlling...as far as what we know, she appeared to have free reign to come and go and enough money to do as she pleased. He didn't murder her because he didn't like how she dressed that is a jerk move agreed. I've read everyone's descriptions of what constitutes domestic violence...but that isn't the charge so I'm alittle lost in the DV discussions and evidence honestly or why people are so upset it won't be allowed. Barry was a crappy spouse for Suzanne at that point in her life, but being a crappy spouse doesn't mean he murdered her so how were they going to tie it to the murder? Just being honest here as I'm not seeing the importance of it not being part of the trial.

I do not believe DV is out as a sentence enhancer if BM is convicted of murdering Suzanne. As someone else has said, that would be the ultimate act of domestic violence. But I still don't see how the enhancements in the statute would add to the punishment of someone who is incarcerated for the rest of his life.

I understand that expert testimony about the nature of DV and the behaviors of the parties to such a relationship has been ruled out, in part because the judge found that BM's prior bad acts that could constitute DV in the expert's view are outweighed by the unfairly prejudicial effect the expert's interpretation may have on the jury's deliberations. This is the fourth and final element of a test developed by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Spoto. Therefore, I infer the proffered evidence passed the first three elements of the analysis:

1. The DV evidence relates to a material fact, i.e., a fact "that is of consequence to the determination of the action."

2. The DV evidence is logically relevant, i.e., it has "a tendency to make the existence of [the material fact] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence?"

3. The logical relevance is independent of the intermediate inference, prohibited by CRE 404(b), that the defendant has a bad character, which would then be employed to suggest the probability that the defendant committed the crime charged because of the likelihood that he acted in conformity with his bad character. (IMO, this is I&E's argument about "profiling" which it seems the judge rejected).

Only if the proffered evidence survives the first three parts of the analysis does the court assess whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

If I am right about the above findings, I wonder whether the evidence concerning the suicide threats (including the one with a weapon), the forcing against the wall, the "clipping" of SM's nose, etc. could still be admitted for a limited purpose as evidence of SM's state of mind (frightened of BM), and not as evidence that the incidents occurred, of BM's character. Given the court's balancing of probative value/unfair prejudice he may think any reference to these incidents is just too unfair to poor BM, but in the absence of more detailed reporting I maintain some hope for this evidence.

I think people are upset with the judge's ruling because he seems to be operating on male stereotypes about women that we believe must change if what women ask of men is to come to pass - to quote RBG, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” I love the men (and boys) in my life, but I look around and I understand what she meant.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Denying Barry access to any future firearms and other weapons would be a win. IMO The fact that Barry doesn’t like to play by the rules tells me he would never abide by those conditions. NEVER! He has already in his own words proven that he is a non law abiding citizen. This is IMO part of what makes him scary and his choices risky to not only humans but every animal on the face of the planet.

He definitely believes he can justify whatever he wants to do. You are right. That makes him a really scary individual. He has no respect for the life of animals so why would one think he would respect the life of a human being? For him, it’s all about not getting caught.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I do not believe DV is out as a sentence enhancer if BM is convicted of murdering Suzanne. As someone else has said, that would be the ultimate act of domestic violence. But I still don't see how the enhancements in the statute would add to the punishment of someone who is incarcerated for the rest of his life.

I understand that expert testimony about the nature of DV and the behaviors of the parties to such a relationship has been ruled out, in part because the judge found that BM's prior bad acts that could constitute DV in the expert's view are outweighed by the unfairly prejudicial effect the expert's interpretation may have on the jury's deliberations. This is the fourth and final element of a test developed by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Spoto. Therefore, I infer the proffered evidence passed the first three elements of the analysis:

1. The DV evidence relates to a material fact, i.e., a fact "that is of consequence to the determination of the action."

2. The DV evidence is logically relevant, i.e., it has "a tendency to make the existence of [the material fact] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence?"

3. The logical relevance is independent of the intermediate inference, prohibited by CRE 404(b), that the defendant has a bad character, which would then be employed to suggest the probability that the defendant committed the crime charged because of the likelihood that he acted in conformity with his bad character. (IMO, this is I&E's argument about "profiling" which it seems the judge rejected).

Only if the proffered evidence survives the first three parts of the analysis does the court assess whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

If I am right about the above findings, I wonder whether the evidence concerning the suicide threats (including the one with a weapon), the forcing against the wall, the "clipping" of SM's nose, etc. could still be admitted for a limited purpose as evidence of SM's state of mind (frightened of BM), and not as evidence that the incidents occurred, of BM's character. Given the court's balancing of probative value/unfair prejudice he may think any reference to these incidents is just too unfair to poor BM, but in the absence of more detailed reporting I maintain some hope for this evidence.

I think people are upset with the judge's ruling because he seems to be operating on male stereotypes about women that we believe must change if what women ask of men is to come to pass - to quote RBG, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” I love the men (and boys) in my life, but I look around and I understand what she meant.

Very good post and I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[FromGermany1]

Yes, Suzanne traveled but we're not privy to what it cost her.

If she were truly free to come or go, IMO she wouldn’t be dead.

Look what happened when she tried to leave.

She wasn't free.

JMO

You are quite right!
A husband, whose ATM is spending a ticket for me to a holiday destination, but who has nothing better to do than traveling after me to control me unexpectedly, is not a husband, who lets me feel free. No matter, how nice or expensive the hotel is. IMO

 

[Boxer]

Unfortunately, without the transcripts we'll never know. In the first two days of the PH the defense would insist they didn't have something, Lindsey would exasperatedly tell the court it was on the hard drives. Personally, I think I&E are full of bull with the discovery "violations" but no one can prove it. They've been complaining since they were handed a bunch of hard drives.

MOO if so, moo the prosecution should have spared no effort to show they did provide the discovery, and iy was provided in an accessible and generally accepted form.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I do not believe DV is out as a sentence enhancer if BM is convicted of murdering Suzanne. As someone else has said, that would be the ultimate act of domestic violence. But I still don't see how the enhancements in the statute would add to the punishment of someone who is incarcerated for the rest of his life.

I understand that expert testimony about the nature of DV and the behaviors of the parties to such a relationship has been ruled out, in part because the judge found that BM's prior bad acts that could constitute DV in the expert's view are outweighed by the unfairly prejudicial effect the expert's interpretation may have on the jury's deliberations. This is the fourth and final element of a test developed by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Spoto. Therefore, I infer the proffered evidence passed the first three elements of the analysis:

1. The DV evidence relates to a material fact, i.e., a fact "that is of consequence to the determination of the action."

2. The DV evidence is logically relevant, i.e., it has "a tendency to make the existence of [the material fact] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence?"

3. The logical relevance is independent of the intermediate inference, prohibited by CRE 404(b), that the defendant has a bad character, which would then be employed to suggest the probability that the defendant committed the crime charged because of the likelihood that he acted in conformity with his bad character. (IMO, this is I&E's argument about "profiling" which it seems the judge rejected).

Only if the proffered evidence survives the first three parts of the analysis does the court assess whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

If I am right about the above findings, I wonder whether the evidence concerning the suicide threats (including the one with a weapon), the forcing against the wall, the "clipping" of SM's nose, etc. could still be admitted for a limited purpose as evidence of SM's state of mind (frightened of BM), and not as evidence that the incidents occurred, of BM's character. Given the court's balancing of probative value/unfair prejudice he may think any reference to these incidents is just too unfair to poor BM, but in the absence of more detailed reporting I maintain some hope for this evidence.

I think people are upset with the judge's ruling because he seems to be operating on male stereotypes about women that we believe must change if what women ask of men is to come to pass - to quote RBG, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” I love the men (and boys) in my life, but I look around and I understand what she meant.

That makes alittle more sense of the judges potential interpretation. It still feels alittle squishy to me and in this case strongly tilts toward characterization and less so as evidentiary. But I can always live with the questions until the case is tried.

 

[marylamby]

I was able to read the entire article.
Prosecutor Hurlbert wanted to call 7 witnesses including LE and CBI in what is known as a “ dual capacity” where they would testify to what they investigated in the case and also use their specialized knowledge to interpret the evidence.

Eytan argued that the State wants the Court to annoit these LE witnesses as experts so they can give their opinions without relying on any expertise in “ an attempt to convict BM through profiling and
so-called victimology “.

Because the Prosecution failed to meet deadlines, Lama said the 7 witnesses can only testify as lay witnesses in their capacity as LE investigators but will be prohibited from testifying as experts.
Lama said without providing discovery to the Defense as to the basis of their expertise it would amount to “ trial by ambush”.

Lama said he will allow 4 other Prosecution witnesses to testify as experts because their names and information were provided in a timely manner. They include a man who handled a dog search looking for clues of SM along the Arkansas river and a Veterinarian who will testify about the effects of tranquilizer darts.
He sanctioned the Prosecution for failing to provide detailed reports on witnesses in a timely manner. He said it was a flaunting of the Courts Orders and they violated it.

And this is no way to sanction the DA by sabotaging their case. In my whole life, I've never heard of such a thing.
Where are the victim's rights? I said it before and I'll say it again, why not just grant their motion to dismiss?
I'll personally start a fund to retry the case and give a generous donation, if the DA decides to dismiss without prejudice. Let's see how he rules in the upcoming hearings but the damage is already done.
IMO, Lama has a major bias in this case. I don't care who for or against but these are not the actions of a fair and nonprejudicial judge. This judge has got to go.
IMO

 

[marylamby]

I do not believe DV is out as a sentence enhancer if BM is convicted of murdering Suzanne. As someone else has said, that would be the ultimate act of domestic violence. But I still don't see how the enhancements in the statute would add to the punishment of someone who is incarcerated for the rest of his life.

I understand that expert testimony about the nature of DV and the behaviors of the parties to such a relationship has been ruled out, in part because the judge found that BM's prior bad acts that could constitute DV in the expert's view are outweighed by the unfairly prejudicial effect the expert's interpretation may have on the jury's deliberations. This is the fourth and final element of a test developed by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Spoto. Therefore, I infer the proffered evidence passed the first three elements of the analysis:

1. The DV evidence relates to a material fact, i.e., a fact "that is of consequence to the determination of the action."

2. The DV evidence is logically relevant, i.e., it has "a tendency to make the existence of [the material fact] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence?"

3. The logical relevance is independent of the intermediate inference, prohibited by CRE 404(b), that the defendant has a bad character, which would then be employed to suggest the probability that the defendant committed the crime charged because of the likelihood that he acted in conformity with his bad character. (IMO, this is I&E's argument about "profiling" which it seems the judge rejected).

Only if the proffered evidence survives the first three parts of the analysis does the court assess whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

If I am right about the above findings, I wonder whether the evidence concerning the suicide threats (including the one with a weapon), the forcing against the wall, the "clipping" of SM's nose, etc. could still be admitted for a limited purpose as evidence of SM's state of mind (frightened of BM), and not as evidence that the incidents occurred, of BM's character. Given the court's balancing of probative value/unfair prejudice he may think any reference to these incidents is just too unfair to poor BM, but in the absence of more detailed reporting I maintain some hope for this evidence.

I think people are upset with the judge's ruling because he seems to be operating on male stereotypes about women that we believe must change if what women ask of men is to come to pass - to quote RBG, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” I love the men (and boys) in my life, but I look around and I understand what she meant.

I can't tell you how much I love this comment.
The huge problem I have is that these extremely relevant points you have outlined, the testimony of experts in DV along with the texts regarding DV have been ruled out.
How about how he was stalking their own home when SO was there and they were scared to death? How about how he went to SO's home unexpectedly when he was to be in another state hunting? Will SO be able to testify to that extremely controlling behavior? It's too bad they hadn't called the police, I guess. It's too bad she kept giving her psychotic husband yet another chance.
Will M2 be called to ask about her wanting her mother to get a RO and a divorce or will that be ruled out too due to characterization? What's next?
As a friend of mine would say, "Somethin' in the milk ain't clean".

IMO

 

[PawneeDew]

I do not believe DV is out as a sentence enhancer if BM is convicted of murdering Suzanne. As someone else has said, that would be the ultimate act of domestic violence. But I still don't see how the enhancements in the statute would add to the punishment of someone who is incarcerated for the rest of his life.

I understand that expert testimony about the nature of DV and the behaviors of the parties to such a relationship has been ruled out, in part because the judge found that BM's prior bad acts that could constitute DV in the expert's view are outweighed by the unfairly prejudicial effect the expert's interpretation may have on the jury's deliberations. This is the fourth and final element of a test developed by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Spoto. Therefore, I infer the proffered evidence passed the first three elements of the analysis:

1. The DV evidence relates to a material fact, i.e., a fact "that is of consequence to the determination of the action."

2. The DV evidence is logically relevant, i.e., it has "a tendency to make the existence of [the material fact] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence?"

3. The logical relevance is independent of the intermediate inference, prohibited by CRE 404(b), that the defendant has a bad character, which would then be employed to suggest the probability that the defendant committed the crime charged because of the likelihood that he acted in conformity with his bad character. (IMO, this is I&E's argument about "profiling" which it seems the judge rejected).

Only if the proffered evidence survives the first three parts of the analysis does the court assess whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

If I am right about the above findings, I wonder whether the evidence concerning the suicide threats (including the one with a weapon), the forcing against the wall, the "clipping" of SM's nose, etc. could still be admitted for a limited purpose as evidence of SM's state of mind (frightened of BM), and not as evidence that the incidents occurred, of BM's character. Given the court's balancing of probative value/unfair prejudice he may think any reference to these incidents is just too unfair to poor BM, but in the absence of more detailed reporting I maintain some hope for this evidence.

I think people are upset with the judge's ruling because he seems to be operating on male stereotypes about women that we believe must change if what women ask of men is to come to pass - to quote RBG, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” I love the men (and boys) in my life, but I look around and I understand what she meant.

Actually, I am upset. As a victim of domestic victim; the more I think about it, the more upset I get. I feel as if we don't have a voice. When it's all said and done, I Hope that Suzanne's voice is heard. Imo imho

 

[marylamby]

Actually, I am upset. As a victim of domestic victim; the more I think about it, the more upset I get. I feel as if we don't have a voice. When it's all said and done, I Hope that Suzanne's voice is heard. Imo imho

So many of us feel your pain and you're not alone. I hope with all of my heart that you're no longer a victim.
The reason we are here, and I think I can speak for almost everyone, is to see justice for Suzanne.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I can't tell you how much I love this comment.
The huge problem I have is that these extremely relevant points you have outlined, the testimony of experts in DV along with the texts regarding DV have been ruled out.
How about how he was stalking their own home when SO was there and they were scared to death? How about how he went to SO's home unexpectedly when he was to be in another state hunting? Will SO be able to testify to that extremely controlling behavior? It's too bad they hadn't called the police, I guess. It's too bad she kept giving her psychotic husband yet another chance.
Will M2 be called to ask about her wanting her mother to get a RO and a divorce or will that be ruled out too due to characterization? What's next?
As a friend of mine would say, "Somethin' in the milk ain't clean".

IMO

I would be surprised if either daughters are called. They were out of town when their mother disappeared and it has the potential to hurt the prosecution. If defense calls then as character witnesses which defense can do prosecution would have an opportunity to cross but it would surprise me if they are called.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I would be surprised if either daughters are called. They were out of town when their mother disappeared and it has the potential to hurt the prosecution. If defense calls then as character witnesses which defense can do prosecution would have an opportunity to cross but it would surprise me if they are called.

I’m not sure myself how MM2’s testimony could harm the prosecution, presuming that evidence we are aware of is accurate re the suggested restraining order, being pulled into volatile marital fights, and worries that their mother was out of touch because there had been some kind of big falling out that day. As some was validated by MM2’s boyfriend at the time, I have no reason to think the evidence isnt accurate.

Just because people haven’t witnessed the actual murder, it doesn’t mean their evidence is irrelevant IMO.

 

[susiQ]

I’m conflicted in regard to this judge. Not sure what to think. IF the prosecution failed to provide the needed documents for/by expert DV witnesses by the deadline set, I think he gets the benefit of the doubt, if his motive is to prevent an appeal in the future. Would SO and others not be able to testify to all BM’s aggressive and sneaky behaviour just as a “matter of fact” without a DV expert interpreting it? I think most jurors would see it for what it is, controlling and abusive.

I think this is doubtful but IF this case is dismissed, what then? Does the DA turn around, rewrite the AA and present it to a judge to rearrest BM? There is without a doubt enough circumstantial evidence to prove probable cause.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I’m not sure myself how MM2’s testimony could harm the prosecution, presuming that evidence we are aware of is accurate re the suggested restraining order, being pulled into volatile marital fights, and worries that their mother was out of touch because there had been some kind of big falling out that day. As some was validated by MM2’s boyfriend at the time, I have no reason to think the evidence isnt accurate.

Just because people haven’t witnessed the actual murder, it doesn’t mean their evidence is irrelevant IMO.

And that is why I wonder if it won’t hurt prosecution. Sometimes I think the public has built this movie in their mind of a perceived marriage dynamic based on the snippets contained in the arrest affidavit and the outcome from the Ds could be a very mundane portrayal of a disintegrating marriage which isn’t aligned with the prosecution desired portrayal at all of the victim or Barry. The speculation may be stronger than the reality through the Ds testimony. That is my fear.

 

[CGray123]

I would be surprised if either daughters are called. They were out of town when their mother disappeared and it has the potential to hurt the prosecution. If defense calls then as character witnesses which defense can do prosecution would have an opportunity to cross but it would surprise me if they are called.

The defense won't be offering evidence of BM's character. IMO, that would open the door to the prosecution to offer rebuttal evidence, which seems to be in ample supply.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I’m conflicted in regard to this judge. Not sure what to think. IF the prosecution failed to provide the needed documents for/by expert DV witnesses by the deadline set, I think he gets the benefit of the doubt, if his motive is to prevent an appeal in the future. Would SO and others not be able to testify to all BM’s aggressive and sneaky behaviour just as a “matter of fact” without a DV expert interpreting it? I think most jurors would see it for what it is, controlling and abusive.

I think this is doubtful but IF this case is dismissed, what then? Does the DA turn around, rewrite the AA and present it to a judge to rearrest BM? There is without a doubt enough circumstantial evidence to prove probable cause.

Yes if the case were to be dismissed it can be refiled if the prosecutor can over come the reasons for the dismissal and the dismissal was without prejudice.

 

[susiQ]

I’m not sure myself how MM2’s testimony could harm the prosecution, presuming that evidence we are aware of is accurate re the suggested restraining order, being pulled into volatile marital fights, and worries that their mother was out of touch because there had been some kind of big falling out that day. As some was validated by MM2’s boyfriend at the time, I have no reason to think the evidence isnt accurate.

Just because people haven’t witnessed the actual murder, it doesn’t mean their evidence is irrelevant IMO.

I’m no expert for sure, but if I were the DA I would try to avoid putting MM2 on the stand. It is obvious to us and likely the public that she is VERY supportive of her father and I feel it would leave a bad taste in our mouths watching her on the stand in tears. Would it not be enough for the officer or agent that interviewed her to state what she said during the interview?

Like I said, I’m no expert . JMHO

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I’m no expert for sure, but if I were the DA I would try to avoid putting MM2 on the stand. It is obvious to us and likely the public that she is VERY supportive of her father and I feel it would leave a bad taste in our mouths watching her on the stand in tears. Would it not be enough for the officer or agent that interviewed her to state what she said during the interview?

Like I said, I’m no expert . JMHO

I wouldn't like to see her on the stand myself either. Lauren said she was sobbing her heart out in a recent hearing as I recall. But I dont think it would harm the prosecution's actual case, which is what the original post was saying.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

And that is why I wonder if it won’t hurt prosecution. Sometimes I think the public has built this movie in their mind of a perceived marriage dynamic based on the snippets contained in the arrest affidavit and the outcome from the Ds could be a very mundane portrayal of a disintegrating marriage which isn’t aligned with the prosecution desired portrayal at all of the victim or Barry. The speculation may be stronger than the reality through the Ds testimony. That is my fear.

I'm not sure of this myself. A restraining order to me wouldn't be a mundane thing at all, but I'm obviously UK based so maybe they are applied in less mundane situations here.