The Chad Lee murder case involves a tragic incident that occurred in Uhland, Texas, where a graduation party turned deadly. This article delves into the details surrounding the shooting, the individuals involved, and the subsequent legal proceedings.
Map of Texas
The Uhland Graduation Party Shooting
According to witnesses, a fight between two girls at a graduation party led to a deadly shooting in Uhland. The incident occurred at a home on County Road 227, where a family was throwing a graduation party for their family member, Andrew Farias.
Andrew Farias, 18, was killed at the party celebrating his recent high school graduation. 18-year-old Chad Lee-Gardner has been charged with Farias' murder.
A witness told Texas Rangers that the fight started because girls were "making faces" and talking about them, according to the affidavit. A young man, identified by witnesses as Chad Lee-Gardner, then jumped in, hitting the female homeowner in the head with a pistol. When Farias attempted to confront Lee-Gardner, he fired two times.
Read also: The Life of Chad Everett Harris
The shooting was caught on camera, according to the affidavit. The suspect, 18-year-old Chad Lee-Gardner, fled before officers arrived. He was later taken into custody in Austin and booked into the Travis County Jail on Memorial Day for murder.
Family, friends, and loved ones of Andrew Farias gathered at Toyota Rattler Stadium to honor his life. Farias was shot and killed at a house party in Uhland just over 24 hours after he got his high school diploma. Farias graduated from San Marcos High School just over 24 hours before the shooting. Family members said he planned to attend Texas State in August.
The 18-year-old played cornerback and running back for the San Marcos Rattlers. A vigil was held for Farias on Tuesday night.
A GoFundMe has been set up for Farias's family to pay for funeral and memorial services.
The Defendant: Chad Alan Lee
‘Ricochet: An American Trauma’ explores unseen impacts of gun violence
Chad Alan Lee (defendant) was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. He was sentenced to death for the murder and to a term in prison for the armed robbery. In separate proceedings, Lee was tried and convicted of two other murders; our disposition of that appeal is published in a separate, simultaneous opinion.
Read also: "Married to Evil": Chad Graves
This is an automatic appeal of the convictions and sentences pursuant to Rules 26.15 and 31.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 13-4031.
On April 27, 1992, defendant Lee entered an AM-PM market to purchase some cigarettes. After the store clerk, Harold Drury, opened the cash drawer, defendant displayed his revolver and shot Drury in the shoulder, causing him to fall slightly backwards. Defendant then shot Drury in the top of the head, the forehead, the cheek, and the neck. Drury slumped to the floor. Defendant walked around the counter and shot Drury two more times in the right temple. One bullet went through Drury's head and broke the display case next to his body. Defendant picked up the cigarettes, took the entire cash drawer from the register, and left the store.
Scott Hunt was in defendant's car waiting to leave the scene. Hunt immediately drove defendant across the street where defendant removed the cylinder from his revolver and threw both parts into a dumpster. Hunt then drove for several miles, and defendant attempted to throw the cash drawer into a creek bed. The drawer, however, smashed into a concrete abutment on the overpass, prompting defendant and Hunt to go back, pick up the drawer, and throw it into the creek bed.
Shortly after the murder, customers found Drury behind the counter and called the police. Upon entering the store, the police saw the cash register open and the cash drawer missing.
During the first interview, defendant described to detectives where the drawer first landed and where he eventually threw it into the creek bed. On their return to Phoenix, the detectives located the pieces of the cash drawer and the drawer itself in the weeds under the bridge that defendant identified. They photographed each scene and preserved the evidence.
Read also: Vallow-Daybell Trial: Key Evidence
Procedural History
The Maricopa County Grand Jury charged defendant with a twelve-count indictment for the murders of Linda Reynolds, David Lacey, and Harold Drury. The trial court severed the counts involving Reynolds and Lacey (Lee I ) from the counts involving Drury (Lee II ). Defendant was charged with armed robbery and first degree murder in the case at bar. In the Lee I trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder for the killings of Reynolds and Lacey.
Pursuant to Rule 609, Arizona Rules of Evidence, the state moved to impeach defendant with his prior convictions in the event he testified at trial. The trial court granted that motion in part, permitting impeachment with defendant's prior felony convictions without reference to the nature of the offenses. The state also moved, pursuant to Rule 404(b), Arizona Rules of Evidence, for permission to introduce evidence regarding the circumstances of the Reynolds and Lacey murders, arguing that the evidence was probative of defendant's defense of lack of intent. The trial court denied that motion “except for purposes of impeachment, if in fact the defendant ‘opens the door.’ ”
Defendant did not testify at trial. The jury found him guilty of armed robbery and first degree murder with unanimous guilty verdicts for both felony murder and premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to death for the murder and to a consecutive twenty-one-year aggravated term for the armed robbery conviction. The court found the following aggravating circumstances under A.R.S. § 13-703(F) for the death sentence: (F)(1) previous death-eligible convictions for the Reynolds and Lacey murders, (F)(2) previous violent felonies, (F)(5) pecuniary gain, and (F)(6) offense committed in an especially cruel, heinous, or depraved manner (finding heinousness and depravity). The court found defendant's age, lack of significant prior criminal history, and deprived childhood to be mitigating circumstances.
Trial Issues
Defendant has raised twelve trial issues on appeal and also challenges findings of aggravation and mitigation related to both his death and armed robbery sentences. We reject these arguments here as well.
Blood Spatter Witness
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in permitting, over objection, a Phoenix Police Department detective, who is also a forensic artist and reconstructionist, to testify as an expert. At trial, defendant argued that the detective did not have sufficient background to testify as a blood spatter expert and that his opinion was not supported by adequate foundation. He further argued that the probative value of the detective's testimony was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
This court has previously ruled on the use of experts:
Under Rules [of Evidence] 702, 703, and 403, expert testimony must (1) come from a qualified expert, (2) be reliable, (3) aid the triers of fact in evaluating and understanding matters not within their common experience, and (4) have probative value that outweighs its prejudicial effect.
A witness may be qualified as an expert by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Ariz. R. Evid. 702. “Whether a witness possesses sufficient qualifications to testify as an expert is a matter within the trial court's discretion and that determination will not be upset on appeal in the absence of clear abuse.”
Qualifications
At trial, the detective testified that he had the following training and qualifications: twenty one years of service with the Phoenix Police Department, fifteen as a homicide detective; training in ballistics and reconstruction of human remains; basic and advanced homicide courses; an eighty-hour course at the FBI Forensic Art School in Quantico, Virginia; a thirty-hour course in composite art; and thirty two hours in introductory and advanced blood spatter courses. The blood spatter courses were taught by a nationally recognized blood spatter expert whom the trial judge had qualified on two prior occasions.
Defendant claims the detective's blood spatter training was insufficient because (1) the training activities involved mannequins and animal blood instead of actual crime scenes and (2) the detective attended “only” thirty two hours of formal training.
Our research reveals no Arizona appellate cases that establish qualifications for blood spatter expert witnesses.
Detective Hodges had perhaps slightly less experience but more formal training than did the detective in Murray. After consideration, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the detective qualified as a blood spatter expert.
Reliability
Defendant claims the detective's testimony was not reliable because it contradicted that of the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy. The medical examiner described the shoulder injury as “a shrapnel wound,” and the detective suggested that the injury was caused by “some type of snake shot or shot shell.” The trial court asked the detective whether his opinion on the cause of the shoulder injury differed from that of the medical examiner. The detective replied that his opinion differed “in a very precise definition of shrapnel.” The medical examiner described multiple tears or cuts in the skin surfaces, some of which had metal in them at the time of autopsy. The detective found the small metal fragments to be “characteristic of a snake-shot type load in possibly a hand gun or long rifle.” On consideration, we conclude that the two interpretations are not contradictory. A photographic exhibit clearly illustrated to the jury how the “shrapnel” injury appeared.
Defendant also argues the detective contradicted the medical examiner regarding the sequence and trajectories of the shots. The medical examiner testified that he did not attempt to attribute a sequence to the shots and that he did not go to the crime scene. Thus, the medical examiner's testimony is consistent with the detective's testimony on this point as well.
Aid to the Jury
The detective's testimony aided the jurors in synthesizing crime scene evidence with autopsy evidence. His testimony helped the jurors understand the likely sequence of the shots and the locations of the victim and gunman during the shooting. This information was directly relevant to determining premeditation.
Weighing of Probative Value and Prejudicial Effect
Defendant claims the state's real purpose in calling the detective to testify was to show the gruesomeness of the murder. Our review of the record reveals that the detective's testimony itself did not use inflammatory language, nor did it focus on the gruesomeness of the murder. The testimony was relevant in determining premeditation and was not cumulative because the detective was the only expert who analyzed the victim's bullet wounds in the context of the crime scene. We therefore find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the detective to testify as an expert.
Autopsy and Blood Spatter Photographs
Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting in evidence four autopsy photographs and three blood spatter photographs.
The admissibility of photographic exhibits is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. To be admissible into evidence, photographs must be relevant. When the photographs, however, have the tendency to incite passion or inflame the jury, “the court must go beyond the question of relevancy and consider whether the probative value of the exhibit outweighs the danger of prejudice created by admission of the exhibit.”
Defendant argues the autopsy photographs were irrelevant because the cause of death was not disputed and because the pictures did not prove premeditation. The state contends that the autopsy photographs were relevant to show the location, size, and shape of the bullet wounds, thus illustrating the expert testimony of the medical examiner and the police detective. Defendant claims the autopsy photographs were gruesome, but the state argues the photographs were not gruesome because they did not include unnecessary parts of the victim's body and the wounds and surrounding skin were cleansed of any excess blood and brain tissue.
Defendant further contends that the blood spatter photographs were irrelevant and cumulative and were introduced solely to demonstrate the gruesomeness of the crime. The state counters by explaining that the photographs aided jurors in understanding testimony regarding the characteristics and location of blood spatter in order to determine sequence and order of shots.
The trial court found the photographs relevant and not particularly gruesome. After viewing the photographs and related testimony, we conclude similarly that the record demonstrates this finding was not an abuse of discretion. The photographs were relevant and their probative value outweighed any possible tendency to incite passion or inflame the jury.
Sufficient Evidence to Deny Judgment of Acquittal
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying defense counsel's motion for a judgment of acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence. A judgment of acquittal is required if no substantial evidence warrants conviction. “ ‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” When reasonable minds may differ on inferences from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.
When the evidence supporting a verdict is challenged on appeal, an appellate court will not reweigh the evidence. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction, and, because the jury has returned its verdict and presumptively followed instructions, all reasonable inferences will be resolved against a defendant.
Crime Scene Investigation
Popular articles:
tags: #Chad
