State v. Rimmer

250 S.W.3d 12 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D had an on-again-off-again romantic relationship with the victim. They started dating sometime after the victim obtained a divorce in 1977 from her first husband. The victim was struggling with a drinking problem. After his relationship with the victim had come to an end, the Defendant was indicted for the aggravated assault and rape of the victim and the first-degree burglary of her residence. In 1989, he entered pleas of guilt to each charge and was sentenced to the Department of Correction. During his incarceration, the victim often accompanied the Defendant's mother, Sandra Rimmer, on visits to the prison. Because the victim participated in a religious program that ministered to inmates from about 1988 to 1992, she saw D regularly. The victim and D displayed an affection for each other during the prison visits. There was evidence that during this period, D informed two inmates, Roger LeScure and William Conaley, of his desire to kill the victim upon his release from the prison. He even described to LeScure how he intended to dispose of her body. D explained to the inmates that he blamed the victim for his incarceration and was entitled to money from her. D was released in October of 1996. The victim was employed as a night auditor at the Memphis Inn and had remarried her first husband. On February 7, 1997, several hotel guests saw the victim at her office desk between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. Before 2:00 a.m., one of the guests noticed a 'dark-maroonish brown' car that had been backed into an area near the hotel entrance. Although it was raining at the time, the trunk was open. At about 2:30 a.m., Raymond Summers entered the office area. When he heard the sound of water running in the office restroom, he looked inside and discovered blood splatters on the sink, the wall, the toilet bowl, and some towels. Police discovered signs of a struggle in the office area. There were 'puddles' of blood throughout the restroom. There was a trail of blood that led from the restroom, through the equipment room, office, reception area, and to the vending space. It ended on the curb outside the night entrance, indicating that the victim may have been dragged from the restroom to the curb. About $600 in cash was missing from the register, and three sets of sheets had been taken from the equipment room. D's car was muddy and so were his shoes. The back seat of the car appeared to be wet. There was a shovel inside. D had asked Richard Rimmer, who was a carpet cleaner, if he knew how to get blood out of a carpet. Richard Rimmer admitted that sometime after he had learned of the victim's disappearance, he disposed of the shovel in a dumpster. D left Memphis without taking the last paycheck and gave no notice of his departure. He also left without taking his work tools or the clothing he had stored in the room he occupied. D was arrested for possession of a stolen vehicle and public intoxication. There were bloodstains on the carpet and a seat belt in the back seat of the Honda. The DNA was consistent with the bloodline of the victim's mother, Marjorie Floyd. It was also consistent with the blood type of the victim, as compared through a sample previously taken from a pap smear. A bloody hotel towel matched the stains found inside the Honda. D attempted to escape three times. The court instructed the jury: 'Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of all the proof in the case and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest easily upon the certainty of guilt. Reasonable doubt does not mean a doubt that may arise from possibility. Absolute certainty is not demanded by the law.' D argues that this sentence lowered the burden of proof from guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.