Rowe v. State

The trial court did not violate defendant's confrontation right by admitting portions of his videotaped statement with a non-testifying detective after defendant opened the door to that evidence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Clayton Rowe appeals his conviction for malice murder in connection with the fatal shooting of his wife, Bobbie Lynn Rowe. He challenges the admission of certain testimony and other evidence, the restriction of cross-examination, and the refusal to allow him to call an alleged newly discovered exculpatory witness. Finding the challenges to be without merit, we affirm.1 The evidence construed in favor of the verdicts showed that in the early morning hours of November 20, 2001, Clayton Rowe “Rowe” telephoned 911 and stated that he had shot his wife, Bobbie Lynn Rowe. Corporal Sanders of the Garden City Police Department responded to the reported shooting at the Rowe home; he found Mrs. Rowe in the “t.v. room” with a bullet wound to the right side of her head, unconscious, and gasping for air. Sanders saw two handguns, a magazine, and a holster on a nearby coffee table. Empty champagne bottles were found. The home was neat and tidy except for the gun cabinet which was in disarray; the cabinet appeared to have been “yanked open.” Rowe was visibly upset, and there was blood on his forehead, wrist, and hands. Mrs. Rowe was transported by emergency personnel to a hospital, where she died on November 25, 2001. She had sustained a “near contact” wound to the head, meaning that the weapon was approximately one centimeter away from her when the wound was inflicted.

Rowe was arrested at the scene and taken to the police station, where he gave a videotaped interview to Detectives Gunno and Stratman; Rowe stated that he and his wife had been drinking champagne, that the handguns were out of the cabinet because he was showing them to his wife, that they “both went for” the Rossi .38 caliber special revolver, and that it fired accidentally.

Rowe v. State

The trial court did not violate defendant's confrontation right by admitting portions of his videotaped statement with a non-testifying detective after defendant opened the door to that evidence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report