Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. MATTHEW L. MATHOT, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 25561-1-III

Division Three

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Sweeney, J. -- This appeal follows convictions for felony murder, burglary, robbery, theft, and identity theft. The defendant murdered his brother and took his brother's checkbook, bankcards, wallet, and truck. He assigns error to a number of the court's rulings and, by claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, claims error that was not raised in the trial court. We conclude that the case was fairly, though imperfectly, tried. And we conclude that the overwhelming, untainted evidence of guilt would render most of the claimed errors harmless in any event. We therefore affirm the convictions. FACTS Mark Mathot's body was found partially buried on his property in Anatone,

No.25561-1-III State v. Mathot Washington, on October 18, 2004. Experts determined that Mark had been shot in the head with a .22 long rifle or Ruger handgun and buried between September 2 and September 25, 2004. Investigators searched Mark's house and found a shoe print in blood on the floor. The last time Mark had been seen or heard from was September 2. On September 1, Mark's brother, Matthew Mathot (Mr. Mathot), took a bus from Spokane, Washington, to Lewiston, Idaho. A few days after the bus trip, Mr. Mathot began to cash Mark's checks and use his bankcards. On September 4, Mark's neighbor saw Mr. Mathot at Mark's house. On September 5, Mr. Mathot told two people who wanted to buy Mark's property that he had already purchased it. On September 27, a friend went to Mark's house to look for Mark. He found Mr. Mathot at the house. Mr. Mathot told the friend that he bought Mark's house and Mark moved to Alaska. On October 4, a sheriff's deputy visited Mark's property to look for him. The deputy saw Mr. Mathot at Mark's house. Mr. Mathot told the deputy that the phone was not working so he was not able to tell concerned family that Mark had moved to Alaska. In early October, Mr. Mathot drove Mark's truck to Oregon where he used Mark's name and bankcards. He was arrested on October 20. He had Mark's wallet, bankcards, checkbook, and truck. And his shoes had Mark's blood on them. The State charged Mr. Mathot with first degree burglary, first degree murder (felony or premeditated), first degree robbery, second degree theft, and second degree identity theft. It also alleged that Mr. 2

No.25561-1-III State v. Mathot Mathot was armed with a firearm when he committed the burglary, murder, and robbery. Mr. Mathot was arraigned October 25, 2004. The court granted defense counsel's motion for a competency evaluation. And it ultimately found Mr. Mathot competent to stand trial. Mr. Mathot moved to seal the court records to prevent adverse publicity through the local news media. The Tribune Publishing Company moved to intervene to oppose "any attempt to prevent access to court records or to close court proceedings of any type." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 8. The trial court granted the Tribune's motion to intervene. And it denied Mr. Mathot's motion to seal the record. The court also granted the State's motion to conduct a portion of voir dire privately to determine whether prospective jurors had been influenced by the media and whether they could try the case impartially. Three weeks later, on August 7, 2006, jury selection began. After a jury was sworn in, the trial court denied Mr. Mathot's motion to change venue. Mr. Mathot's trial began on August 8. The State objected to defense counsel's opening statement when counsel said Mark had committed acts of domestic violence. The court ordered counsel not to refer to acts of domestic violence or drug use in his opening statement. Sergeant Thomas White testified for the State. He testified without objection about statements made to him and 3

No.25561-1-III State v. Mathot documents examined by him. Other witnesses testified about Mark and Mr. Mathot's acrimonious relationship and that Mark had said he did not want Mr. Mathot at his house. During Mr. Mathot's case-in-chief, John O'Shaughnessy testified that he had been friends with Mr. Mathot in junior high and high school and that Mr. Mathot had always been friendly. The prosecutor cross-examined Mr. O'Shaughnessy about violent acts by Mr. Mathot, again without objection by defense counsel. The jury found Mr. Mathot guilty of first degree felony murder, first degree burglary, first degree robbery, second degree theft, and second degree identity theft. And the trial court sentenced him to nearly 50 years in prison. DISCUSSION Speedy Trial Right The court delayed Mr. Mathot's trial for 18 months while experts evaluated his mental competency. The court did so over his objection. Mr. Mathot contends the trial court violated his rule-based1 and constitutional2 rights to a speedy trial. The question raised is whether the judge abused his discretion by delaying the trial to accommodate the competency evaluations. Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. State v. Lopez, 74 Wn. App. 264, 268, 872 P.2d 1131 (1994).

1 2

CrR 3.3. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Wash. Const. art. I,

Download 255611-unp-doc.pdf

Washington Law