February 20, 2019 at 4:34 p.m.
Court denies appeal in murder case
Justices also deny request for new trial in Spietz case
Court denies appeal in murder case
Attorneys for Martinson, now 20, argued Oneida County Circuit Judge Michael Bloom "erroneously abused his discretion" when he remarked in his sentencing statement that Martinson "had a choice" when she shot her stepfather Thomas Ayers with a shotgun and stabbed her mother Jennifer Ayers on March 7, 2015 in their town of Piehl home.
The only choice Martinson believed that she had, at the crucial moment, was whether to kill herself or stepfather, the defense argued, citing the long history of abuse inflicted on the teen throughout her childhood. Further, the defense noted that Martinson and the state entered into a plea agreement "whereby the state agreed to amend charges of first-degree intentional homicide to those of second-degree intentional homicide based upon the mitigating circumstance of adequate provocation. Among other things, the adequate provocation defense is premised upon a 'complete lack of self-control' on the defendant's part. Given this premise, Martinson argued the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it repeatedly stated that Martinson 'had a choice' whether to kill the victims."
In a 19-page ruling released Wednesday morning, the appeals court rejected Martinson's argument.
"We conclude that pursuant to the plain language of the relevant statutes, when the State stipulates to amend a first-degree intentional homicide charge to a second-degree offense based upon the mitigating circumstance of adequate provocation, it stipulates not to the fact that adequate provocation existed, but rather to its inability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that facts supporting such a defense did not exist. Moreover, longstanding sentencing law permits a circuit court to reach its own conclusions about a defendant's character based upon the information before it. Because the record here contained information sufficient to support the sentencing court's comments regarding Martinson's volitional capacity to commit the murders, we affirm."
Bloom sentenced Martinson to 23 years in prison to be followed by 17 years extended supervision.
Also Wednesday, the court rejected an appeal filed by a Kaukauna man who was convicted of entering the Martinson home after the murders and taking property including ATVs, lawn mowers, compound bows and Jennifer Ayers purse.
Following a two-day trial in late August 2016, Mark F. Spietz was found guilty of three counts of burglary and one count of theft between $5,000 and $10,000. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and 18 months probation. Spietz argued at trial that he entered the home and secured property as part of a work order from his employer TruAssets, a Scottsdale, Ariz. company which secures abandoned or foreclosed properties for banks.
Spietz later filed a motion for post-conviction relief arguing that new evidence in the form of a voice mail and call log recently recovered from his cellphone would have demonstrated to the jury that he had tried to get updated instructions on how to proceed in his job securing the property.
Bloom denied the post-conviction motion on the grounds the new information would not have impacted the jury's verdict.
In a nine-page decision, the appeals court agreed with Bloom.
"We conclude there is no reasonable probability that a new trial would produce a different result," the justices wrote. "The jury heard evidence that the work order was very limited in scope, and Spietz conceded he had no authorization to take property from the premises. Therefore, had the jury heard that TruAssets called to ask if there was a 'trash out' order during which property may have been accidentally removed, the jury would have known, based on Spietz's own testimony, that there was no such order. Likewise, had the jury heard that Spietz was in contact with TruAssets in September and October 2015, it would have known - again based on Spietz's testimony - that the contact did not involve a work order instructing Spietz to remove personal property from the premises. Moreover, the call log did not reveal the content of any of the calls, and Spietz testified at the postconviction motion hearing that during any month, he averaged fifty to sixty jobs for TruAssets. Spietz nevertheless argues that 'the voicemail and call log would be supportive of the defense that the defendant had additional instructions and orders concerning the residence in addition to the instructions set forth in the work order.' This argument, however, assumes a defense that Spietz did not make at trial. Spietz conceded at trial that he lacked authority to remove the personal property, but claimed, in his defense, that he took the property to secure it and with the hope that he would later get permission to keep it. Because Spietz acknowledged he never received permission to remove the personal property, this evidence of additional contact with TruAssets is irrelevant to Spietz's defense at trial. Spietz has therefore failed to establish a reasonable probability that a jury, looking at the trial evidence and the new evidence, would have a reasonable doubt as to Spietz's guilt. His newly discovered evidence claim consequently fails."
Martinson and Spietz may appeal the rulings to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
A more detailed story about the two decisions will appear in a future edition of the River News.
Jamie Taylor may be reached via email at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.