Man shoots burglar but still ends up getting charged

Status
Not open for further replies.

sturmruger

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
3,055
Location
NW, WI
Attempted-murder charge tossed in shooting of alleged bar burglar
After watching surveillance tapes from the Funky Buddha restaurant, a Denver judge orders the co-owner to stand trial for first-degree assault.
By Howard Pankratz,
Denver Post Staff Writer


A Denver businessman who said he shot a burglar in self-defense inside his restaurant won a crucial victory Monday when a judge threw out an attempted-murder charge against him.

County Judge Aleene Ortiz-White said that Dwayne Stepp, 44, who broke into the Funky Buddha bar at 3:11 a.m. on Jan. 3, repeatedly advanced toward co-owner Christakes Christou.

The judge, who twice watched surveillance-camera tapes of the encounter, said Stepp and Christou were in close contact during the confrontation. Although armed with a pistol, Christou, 60, did not fire, she said.

Instead, Ortiz-White said, Christou pushed Stepp back twice. Only on the third occasion, when Stepp again was right in his face, did Christou shoot, wounding Stepp in the abdomen.

The judge, however, did order Christou to stand trial for first- degree assault, leaving it up to a jury to decide whether Christou intended to "cause serious bodily injury" to Stepp by shooting him.

Defense attorney Larry Pozner said that had the incident occurred in a home, Christou would have been able to shoot Stepp under Colorado's "make my day" law without any repercussions. But Pozner said the law doesn't apply to businessmen confronted in their businesses.

During the day-long preliminary hearing, Pozner also hammered Denver detectives and prosecutors, contending that they had failed to look into Stepp's lengthy criminal background. Pozner said that over the years, Stepp has been arrested more than 50 times in four states and used seven different names and three different Social Security numbers.

Among Stepp's most recent arrests, Pozner said, was at the Funky Buddha, where he was arrested Aug. 26, 2005, for walking in the back door, taking a bottle of bourbon from a liquor cabinet and then walking out.

The lead investigator on the case, Detective Bret Starnes, said he didn't know the degree of Stepp's criminal activity, although he knew he had a lengthy arrest

record. Starnes also said he didn't know Stepp had told the Denver district attorney's office that he was very drunk the night of the altercation.
The surveillance tapes showed Stepp walking up to the glass front door of the lounge, removing a side panel of the door, and crawling in.

Sgt. Michael Wyatt, the first officer on the scene, said Christou told him that Stepp broke in, that he had broken in four times before, that Stepp pushed him and so he shot him.

Prosecutor Dawn Weber said that Stepp has pleaded guilty to trespassing and was sentenced to probation.

The prosecution's case was built around Starnes' interpretation of the video in which he characterized Christou as the primary aggressor.

Starnes also said that it was 57 minutes from the time of the shooting until someone from the Funky Buddha called 911.

He said that during that time, a number of acquaintances of Christou arrived at the lounge and that it appeared that at least one of the people kicked the front door to make it appear that Stepp had kicked in the door.

Pozner said that had Stepp approached any Denver police officer the way Stepp approached Christou, the police would have shot him five times in the chest.

"He (Stepp) would have been dead, dead, dead," Pozner said. "He would have been dead, deader, deadest."

I thought this was an interesting story. It sounds to me like the businessman was within his rights to shoot Mr Stepp, but I think he handled everything wrong afterwards and that is why he is now in trouble.

The three things I can identify that he should have done differantly.

  1. He should not have talked to the cops without his lawyer present other then some basic statement like "he came towards me I was afraid for my life"
  2. He didn't call 911 imediately after the shooting.
  3. Should have been more mindful of the cameras and how his actions would look after the fact.

Unless CO has some really quirky laws I think this guy could have avoided being charges he just needed to play things a little bit smarter.
 
“The prosecution's case was built around Starnes' interpretation of the video in which he characterized Christou as the primary aggressor.”

The business owner made some poor choices for sure. Maybe out of paranoia with regard to a questionable shooting. Nevertheless, this story aligns perfectly and supports a previous debate here on THR regarding 911 calls during an assault in the home and the possibility of the taped call being used against the homeowner in court should something not sound “judicious” on the audio.

Thanks for posting this sturmruger
 
Woah. I've been in the Buddha quite a few times and met the owners briefly. Hope they come out of this OK.
 
...leaving it up to a jury to decide whether Christou intended to "cause serious bodily injury" to Stepp by shooting him.

We need a jury to decide this?

Christou: "No Mr. Prosecutor, I had no intention of causing 'serious bodily injury', I was attempting to cause 'DRT'. Guess I need some more range time."
 
These are my favorite types of stories because there is so much to learn. It is always easier to learn from other peoples mistakes then my own.
 
Starnes also said that it was 57 minutes from the time of the shooting until someone from the Funky Buddha called 911.

He said that during that time, a number of acquaintances of Christou arrived at the lounge and that it appeared that at least one of the people kicked the front door to make it appear that Stepp had kicked in the door.

Having friends over to help him with obstruction of justice by messing with the scene probably had a lot to do with the original charge of attempted murder. :uhoh:

Jeff
 
Stepp was in Christou's face, so the owner shot him after the third time :( . If Stepp had a lethal weapon or had there been at least a drag out fight and had Stepp been so much larger than Christou that he could have indeed killed him in a physical fight, I might be inclined to be more on the side of Christou, but you don't shoot someone unless you are in fear of your life....and that is not indicated anywhere, unless I really missed something. Absent really strong cause for self defense, I think Christou needs some time in jail.
And yes, I carry and believe in self defense, but the law does not give me the right to kill or shoot someone just because he was in my face, and it did say Christou was the one doing the pushing.
Hope to hear followup from the courts on this one.
 
Wish I could see the tape, but when you have a perp who breaks into a business at 3:11 AM and repeatedly advances on the proprietor, it is reasonable to conclude that he poses a real and immediate threat to the proprietor's personal safety.

The businessman's first call should have been to his attorney. (As a bar owner, he SHOULD have an attorney.) Then to 911.

Having "acquaintences" over complicates things, especially if they try to "help" by tampering with the crime scene.

Providing the surveillance tape before it was "vetted" by his attorney may have been a mistake.
 
HerrWolfe, I would agree with you if Stepp hadn't broken into the bar. Is a person not justified in reacting aggressively when the person who just broke into their business is in their face? Asside from the shooter's idiotic actions after the fact, I think the shoot was justified.
 
HerrWolfe, I would agree with you if Stepp hadn't broken into the bar. Is a person not justified in reacting aggressively when the person who just broke into their business is in their face? Asside from the shooter's idiotic actions after the fact, I think the shoot was justified.
If he broke in why did one of the shooters buddies have to come over and kick in the front door so that it had the appearance of being broken into? Trying to alter the appearance of a crime after the fact shows a certain consciousness of guilt. One could ask themselves why an innocent man would need to do such things. On the other hand, there are some good answers to that question.
 
HankB said;
Providing the surveillance tape before it was "vetted" by his attorney may have been a mistake.

It's not like you're going to get to pick and choose the evidence you let the police have. Since this happend on private property most jurisdictions would seal the crime scene and get a search warrant before proceeding. The only way you're going to keep the tape from the prosecution is to hide it's existance.

c_yeager said;
If he broke in why did one of the shooters buddies have to come over and kick in the front door so that it had the appearance of being broken into? Trying to alter the appearance of a crime after the fact shows a certain consciousness of guilt. One could ask themselves why an innocent man would need to do such things. On the other hand, there are some good answers to that question.

Perhaps the buddy listened to all the legal advise that is freely given over the counter at the local gunshop on a rainy Saturday morning or around the table at the local gunshow or is posted on his favorite online firearms forum?

Jeff
 
Jeff White said:
The only way you're going to keep the tape from the prosecution is to hide it's existance.
Any number of plausible arguments can be made - later, by the proprietor's attorney! - as to why the tape was unavailable during the initial investigation.

Especially if multiple "acquaintences" were roaming through the bar and contaminating the scene (providing fake kick marks on the door was just plain stupid) before police arrived.

And of course, beyond identifying himself, the proprietor should've kept his pie hole shut until speaking with his attorney.

(I wonder if the two men had a history, some connection, beyond what was revealed in the story . . . )
 
Hmm seeing the tape would indeed be interesting as it sounds like the owner may have had plenty of time to call the police in the time between the break in and the shooting . If so the shooting could have been avoided .
 
HankB said;
Any number of plausible arguments can be made - later, by the proprietor's attorney! - as to why the tape was unavailable during the initial investigation.

Give me one plausible argument......Do you think the man's attorney is going take an obstruction of justice charge for the team?

Look at this scenario. A shooting occurs in a bar. The police arrive and begin their investigation. The scene is secured and a judge signs a search warrant for the bar. The bar is searched for evidence. The tape from the video system for the time the shooting occurs is missing, yet the video system is operable. Investigation proceeds without the videotape. Bar owner is charged with attempted murder. Video showing exculpatory action of the bar owner suddenly appears.

How do we know that's the video that was missing? What excuse does the bar owner and his attorney give for removing it?

You can't tamper with evidence. The videotape from the surveillance system is evidence. If you remove it from the scene or hide it from the police you've committed the crime of obstruction of justice.

Removing the videotape is just as bad as kicking in the door to make it look as if there was forcible entry.

Jeff
 
Wonder if this would be one of those times that pepper spray would be more appropriate for defense of habitation. Just imagine that this is on the video tape when the police arrive and the jurors watch it. This guy breaks into a restaurant and starts walking over to the owner. The owner picks up a can of pepper spray (he has a few hidden holders in a few parts of where mostly only he operates at). The owner looks at the video camera and says, "Hello, my name is Christakes Christou. This guy thinks that I'm about ready to defend myself from him, and he's right." Then he sprays the intruder right in the face with his stream pattern pepper spray and Stepp immediately bends over towards his knees as a natural response and starts screaming. Or better yet, Christakes has one of those grizzly bear pepper spray bottles that shoots 35 feet and huge width (what is it, 7-8 feet across when it hits you or something), and aims right at the intruder. Since Christou doesn't spray himself with it, he's not incapacitated, but it is unpleasant enough in the room that he has to run into a different room or out of the restaurant. But hey, at least he saved himself from physical injury, protected his restaurant, and gift wrapped the intruder for the police.
 
Jeff is correct I should have added that the idiot should not have called his buddies to come over and mess with stuff.

As law abiding citizens we must depend upon the truth. You know the old addage "THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE" that should always be our motto. It is in the business owners best interest to show the video tape because it sounds to me that for the actual crime of assault it will prove that he could have been afraid for his life. I see this as situation that this guy messed up himself. If he had called 911, and left the whole crime scene in pristinc condition I am sure the cops would have been a lot less suspicious. I am sure Jeff can attest that cops have a sixth sense when they are getting a line of BS from someone. I see this guy as the type that would have acted like he was tell the whole truth but was leaving out that he waited 57 mins to call the cops, and his buddies messed with the scene.
 
If he broke in why did one of the shooters buddies have to come over and kick in the front door so that it had the appearance of being broken into? Trying to alter the appearance of a crime after the fact shows a certain consciousness of guilt. One could ask themselves why an innocent man would need to do such things. On the other hand, there are some good answers to that question.

Are you questioning whether he broke in?

From the article:
The surveillance tapes showed Stepp walking up to the glass front door of the lounge, removing a side panel of the door, and crawling in.

As I said in my previous post, the shoot seems justified. Everything the shooter and his buddies did after the shoot is pure idiocy.
 
goes to show you

why you say nothin till you talk to lawyer
in pg county md the police union got a deal where after a shooting even a cop has 5 days before he has to make a statement. so he can get over the trauma and not say wrong thing.
 
The main mistake I saw was, as stated before, not shooting during the initial assault. If you can shove the assailant away twice without injury your credibility for lethal force has been severely damaged if you shoot on the third go-round because you're tired of this guy being in your face. If there was a weapon or a radical change in demeanor on third scuffle it might have been different but the story doesn't seem to show that was the case.
And calling your buddies over to toss the place and make it look better while the assailant is lying on the ground doing the spurty bit before you call the police? Not frickin' cool at all.

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
 
That is a good point Mark I never thought of it that way. Why didn't he feel threatened enought to shoot the first 2 times he got shoved??
 
Jeff White wrote:
Give me one plausible argument......
Maybe the bar owner thought the tape should go to his lawyer, and secured it for HIM. Being arrested, he exercised his right to remain silent, so didn't tell police about the tape. Eventually he turned it over to his lawyer. The lawyer sees it, and does the lawyerly thing and turns it over to the DA, while profusely apologizing for his client's actions, which the client had NO IDEA may have contravened the law. IANAL, but it seems that successfully pursuing an obstruction charge against the bar owner - who, on being arrested, was after all seeking legal representation from his attorney - would IMHO be difficult.

OK, here's a scenario which doesn't include the bar owner directly:

Other people - onlookers, gawkers, acquaintences, whatever - had access to the bar before police arrived and secured the scene. Perhaps one of them - or even a sympathetic police officer - had access to the tape.

A week or so later, the video tape is delivered anonymously to the attorney.
How do we know that's the video that was missing?
The bar owner AND the man he shot both appear on the tape. The actual shooting is on the tape. How could it be anything BUT the missing video?

After viewing it, the attorney realizes it is evidence and turns it over to police.

Suspect all you want - but prove otherwise.

(BTW, I think it was the height of idiocy for one of the bar owner's "acquaintences" to try and fabricate evidence of a break in by kicking the door. And it still wouldn't surprise me if the bar owner and the perp had some prior history beyond what appeared in the story.)
 
HankB,
I'm pretty certain that what constitutes obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence is fairly uniform throughout the country. Here is the Illinois law on Obstruction of Justice:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=60500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
(720 ILCS 5/31‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑4)
Sec. 31‑4. Obstructing justice.
A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly commits any of the following acts:
(a) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false information; or
(b) Induces a witness having knowledge material to the subject at issue to leave the State or conceal himself; or
(c) Possessing knowledge material to the subject at issue, he leaves the State or conceals himself.
(d) Sentence.
(1) Obstructing justice is a Class 4 felony, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection (d).
(2) Obstructing justice in furtherance of streetgang related or gang‑related activity, as defined in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act, is a Class 3 felony.
(Source: P.A. 90‑363, eff. 1‑1‑98.)

If the bar owner removes the surveillance tape from the bar before the police arrive with the intent of only allowing the police to see it if his lawyer oks it, he is concealing evidence. This is addressed in subparagraph (a) of the statute. The lawyer would have to immediately turn the tape over to the prosecution when the bar owner brought it in, no matter what was on it or he (the lawyer) would also be guilty of obstruction of justice.

If the tape includes exculpatory evidence the defense attorney may not be able to have it admitted into evidence because there won't be a clear chain of custody. Unless the defense can prove that the tape was secure from any tampering from the time it was removed from the recording device to the time it was handed over to the prosecution or entered into evidence the prosecution could probably successfully object to it's admission as evidence. Video is very easy to alter or create.

It would be better not to have a surveillance system at then to remove the tape after the incident and have it reveiwed by anyone before turning it over to the police.

Do you really think the lawyer would tell the bar owner to lose the tape if it made the bar owner look bad?
Jeff
 
Jeff,

There were so many things about the aftermath that look fishy, I'm not sure WHAT the lawyer would say if the tape were incriminating. We simply don't know whether or not the barkeep is a choirboy or a bit on the shady side himself. Ditto for his lawyer.

Proving that the bar owner intended to obstruct prosecution might be tricky . . . not being a lawyer himself, maybe he only intended to get the tape into safe hands (his lawyer's) . . .

Fabricating or falsifying evidence is pretty clear cut, but concealing evidence - depending a lot on the specifics - when done by an arrestee is not so clear cut.

Nab a suspected hit man - hit him with "obstruction" if he doesn't turn over the murder weapon?

Grab a presumed dope dealer - prosecute for "obstruction" if he doesn't lead police to his stash?

Anyway, this is pure speculation . . . you asked for "plausible" scenarios in which the tape might not be found by the police executing a search warrant, but turned up later . . . I think I've done so. (Do the police ALWAYS, every time, without fail, get a search warrant to go through the whole premesis in cases like this? If not, this further complicates the issue.)

Sure, the circumstances would stink . . . but in cases like this, knowing someone was pulling a fast one and being able to prove criminal intent in court are two different things.

(And if the tape didn't make it to court, the exculpatory parts would sure make it to local TV.)
Do you really think the lawyer would tell the bar owner to lose the tape if it made the bar owner look bad?
I don't know - do you think all lawyers are ethical?
 
HankB said;
Nab a suspected hit man - hit him with "obstruction" if he doesn't turn over the murder weapon?

No, but hit him with obstruction if he tried to dispose of or conceal the murder weapon. Obstruction charges are routine in cases where the suspect made an effort to hide the evidence.

(Do the police ALWAYS, every time, without fail, get a search warrant to go through the whole premesis in cases like this? If not, this further complicates the issue.)

I can't speak for the all the police, but I can say that it's standard procedure around here. There has been plenty of evidence suppressed because the investigating officers expanded a search for evidence into areas they needed a warrant for while looking over the crime scene. I recall a case from metro east (St Louis metro area) where a body was found in a refrigerator and the body was suppressed because the court ruled that looking into the refrigerator was not legal because it expanded the search away from the crime scene without a warrant. So you simply secure the area and get a warrant, then you don't lose any evidence you recover.

Sure, the circumstances would stink . . . but in cases like this, knowing someone was pulling a fast one and being able to prove criminal intent in court are two different things.

I'm pretty sure I could convict someone on obstruction if they removed the tape from the suveillance system.

I don't know - do you think all lawyers are ethical?

I'm not going to comment on that.......

My point is, I don't want someone to read this thread and think that it is a good idea to have their lawyer reveiw the surveillance tape before the police see it. That kind of advice is very likely to get someone charged with obstruction. If you're involved in a defensive use of force, don't do anything to change the scene. Don't drag the body into the house, don't try to put a throwawy gun or knife in the hands of the body, don't remove and hide any evidence...doing that kind of thing is just buying you more trouble.

Jeff
 
We haven't seen the tape. My takeaway point is for all those who spout on the Internet (some in this thread) that a shoot is almost alway unambiguous according to their self-proclaimed knowledge of the law. They argue against pepper spray or verbal warnings, etc. It is always so clear when you have to use deadly force (in their super expert legal minds).

That's what I get out of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top