State v. Jesse Ray Lloyd

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
March 23, 2021
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2020AP58-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2016CF325

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

JESSE RAY LLOYD,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Chippewa County:
JAMES M. ISAACSON, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

¶1 PER CURIAM. Jesse Lloyd appeals from an amended judgment
convicting him of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and possession of a
No. 2020AP58-CR

firearm by a felon. The sole issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred by
refusing to provide a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of conspiracy
to commit robbery by threat of force. We conclude the evidence at trial did not
warrant an instruction on the lesser included offense and therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The State charged Lloyd with first-degree intentional homicide as
party to a crime; conspiracy to commit armed robbery with use of force; and
possession of a firearm by a felon, all in connection with the shooting death of
Kenneth Patterson. The key witness at trial was Lloyd’s alleged co-conspirator,
Matthew LaBrec. The jury instruction issue turns largely on whether there were
reasonable grounds to accept part, but not all, of LaBrec’s account of events—
particularly as to who wielded the gun that fired the fatal shot. We will therefore
set forth LaBrec’s testimony in detail, followed by shorter summaries of other
evidence that supported or undermined LaBrec’s testimony on various points.

¶3 LaBrec appeared as a witness for the State after being given a
favorable plea deal and testimonial immunity. LaBrec testified he made plans
with Lloyd to rob Patterson because they needed money for drugs and Patterson
had ripped off LaBrec in a drug deal a couple months earlier. The plan involved
the use of firearms as an “equalizer” because Patterson was bigger than either
LaBrec or Lloyd, and LaBrec feared they would be at a disadvantage if it came to
a physical confrontation with Patterson. LaBrec planned to arm himself with a
modified .22 rifle with a cutoff barrel, and Lloyd planned to arm himself with a
purple and white .380 Cobra handgun. The two planned to threaten Patterson with
their guns to get his money, but not to shoot Patterson unless Patterson attacked
them.

2
No. 2020AP58-CR

¶4 Lloyd had stolen the Cobra within the week before the attempted
robbery. LaBrec described the Cobra as a cheap gun that would sometimes jam up
and had something wrong with the firing pin. LaBrec bought an extended clip for
the Cobra on Lloyd’s behalf, but he returned it because it would not fit that model.
Lloyd and LaBrec also attempted to buy ammunition for the Cobra, but they were
unable to complete the transaction because they were underage. Lloyd
subsequently got another person, Robert Scherer, to buy ammunition for him.

¶5 LaBrec had gotten his rifle by trading methamphetamine for it. The
stock broke off the back of the rifle, so LaBrec used electrical tape to wrap the
stock and keep the loading mechanism in place. LaBrec admitted that he was
trying to buy a working gun before the attempted armed robbery, and that Lloyd
had tried to sell the Cobra on the day of the attempted armed robbery. LaBrec,
however, denied on cross-examination that he had bought the Cobra from Lloyd or
traded him for it. Still, LaBrec knew Lloyd would let him use the Cobra if he
wanted to do so.

¶6 LaBrec said he lured Patterson to a secluded place by telling
Patterson that LaBrec’s drug dealer would give Patterson cheaper
methamphetamine if Patterson met with the drug dealer personally. LaBrec chose
a new residential development as the robbery site because he thought there would
not be cameras there. Lloyd and LaBrec picked Patterson up in Lloyd’s car, and
Lloyd drove all three of them to a house under construction in the development.
The three exited the car and headed toward the back of the house. As they walked,
LaBrec prepared to pull out his rifle from a neoprene carrier bag; meanwhile, it
was too dark for him to see when Lloyd pulled out his handgun. When they
reached the back of the house, LaBrec and Lloyd both put their guns up, and
Lloyd’s gun discharged before anyone said anything. LaBrec thought the

3
No. 2020AP58-CR

discharge was accidental, due to the “weird” or “hairpin” firing pin on the Cobra’s
trigger combined with Lloyd’s nervousness or adrenaline. Lloyd subsequently
told LaBrec that he did not know why he shot Patterson, saying, “It just
happened.”

¶7 After Lloyd’s gun discharged, Patterson fell or stumbled back
against some bushes, said “What the hell, Jesse,” and began running. Lloyd “shot
some more” as Patterson ran away. LaBrec tried to fire his rifle as well, but the
electrical tape wrapped around the stock blocked the safety, and a portion of the
taped loading mechanism fell off as LaBrec ran alongside the house following
Patterson. LaBrec tried to retrieve the dropped piece of his rifle, but he could not
find it in the dark. Patterson ran out of sight while LaBrec was searching for the
dropped piece. LaBrec then met up with Lloyd in the car in front of the house.
They decided not to continue searching for Patterson because law enforcement
could be on its way, so they left.

¶8 Lloyd and LaBrec drove from the scene of the shooting to
Ryley Clark’s house to procure some methamphetamine. LaBrec went in and told
Clark in front of Kayle LaRose, who was at Clark’s house, that he had just shot
“K.P.” and was going to leave the state. LaBrec testified that he lied in front of
LaRose to protect Lloyd and because he did not trust LaRose—so, if she snitched,
her story would not match the facts. LaBrec then took Clark aside and whispered
to him “what really happened.” LaBrec told Clark that his “money fell through,”
but Clark still gave him some methamphetamine. Lloyd and LaBrec then drove to
a random driveway in the country to get high and discuss what they were going to
do.

4
No. 2020AP58-CR

¶9 LaBrec wanted to get rid of the guns and leave the state, but Lloyd
did not. They decided to find someplace to lay low until morning, so LaBrec
contacted Steve Kolpien. Kolpien met LaBrec and Lloyd at a truck stop in Cadott,
then led them to a house where they left Lloyd’s car and then drove them to
Connie Sonnentag’s residence. At Sonnentag’s house, LaBrec asked Kolpien how
to get rid of a gun, and Kolpien told LaBrec he could melt LaBrec’s rifle down for
him if LaBrec left the rifle with Kolpien, which he did. LaBrec subsequently told
police he threw the rifle into the river because he wanted to protect Kolpien.

¶10 Finally, LaBrec testified about an incident that occurred one to three
days before the shooting. LaBrec sold Patterson methamphetamine while LaBrec,
Patterson, Lloyd and Kayla Naser were in Lloyd’s car. During the transaction,
Patterson made some threatening remarks to LaBrec. Patterson then exited the
vehicle, “still talking shit.” LaBrec “got mad,” grabbed the .22 rifle he had with
him, and pulled the trigger, trying to shoot Patterson in the back as Patterson
walked away. The rifle did not fire, however, because there was no round in the
chamber.

¶11 We turn next to the other evidence in the case relevant to this appeal.
Patterson’s dead body was found on the morning of March 14 in the yard of a
home near the house that was under construction where LaBrec testified the
attempted armed robbery and shooting had occurred. The Chippewa County
coroner determined Patterson bled to death from a single gunshot to the femoral
artery in his thigh. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy determined
the wound was inflicted by a high-caliber bullet, larger than a .22.

¶12 Chippewa County Sheriff’s Department Investigator Bradley Lau
testified that he marked a blood trail leading from the body that connected to

5
No. 2020AP58-CR

another blood trail coming from the front of the house identified by LaBrec. Lau
recovered three spent casings, one unfired round, and a fired bullet in a tree in the
front lawn of the house. An additional spent casing was recovered from the
backyard. The spent casings and unfired round were all marked “WIN .380 auto.”
Lau also recovered what he termed a “magazine tube pusher” for a .22 rifle
alongside the house, during a walk-through of the crime scene with LaBrec.

¶13 Law enforcement obtained video surveillance of Scherer buying
ammunition for the Cobra in Lloyd’s company on March 11—two days before the
shooting—as well as Lloyd and LaBrec’s earlier attempt to buy ammunition.
Scherer authenticated still images of himself and Lloyd from the video and
confirmed that he bought the ammunition for Lloyd. A hardware store manager
testified that, on March 11, he had assisted two men who bought a magazine for a
.380 handgun that was returned later that day. The return paperwork was made
under LaBrec’s name.

¶14 Law enforcement executed a search warrant at the residence of
Bruce Willi at the same time they arrested Lloyd there. Among other items, they
recovered a .380 Cobra magazine clip, unfired ammunition marked “WIN .380
auto,” consistent with that purchased by Scherer and recovered at the crime scene,
and a smashed phone. Willi testified that he had never owned a Cobra, the items
were not his, and LaBrec had not been in his residence since the shooting. No
.380 ammunition was recovered in a search of the residence where LaBrec was
arrested. Heidi Kunsman testified that she had owned a purple Cobra, which she
discovered was missing after the shooting when police executed a search warrant
at her residence.

6
No. 2020AP58-CR

¶15 Brandon Wooley told law enforcement that LaBrec had asked Lloyd
to “help set up K.P.” Wooley did not think that Lloyd “even wanted to do
anything,” but he was just doing what someone had told him to do. Wooley did
not know much about the plan, other than it was “setting up, just rob him or
something.”

¶16 Gary LaRose testified that he hung out with Lloyd, LaBrec and
Timmy Johnson at LaRose’s house on the afternoon of March 13, getting high on
methamphetamine. LaBrec showed LaRose a sawed-off rifle in pieces and asked
if LaRose could fix it. Lloyd had a purple pistol, and he asked whether LaRose or
Johnson knew anyone who wanted to buy it. Johnson similarly testified that
LaBrec showed him and LaRose that he had a sawed-off .22 rifle with the stock
broken off and that Lloyd showed them a purple pistol. Johnson said he asked
Lloyd if he wanted to sell the purple pistol because his girlfriend might be
interested in it. Johnson’s then-girlfriend Heather Schroeder testified that she
looked at the purple gun in Lloyd’s possession, but she and Johnson decided not to
buy it because Lloyd told them it was “hot.”

¶17 Chelsea Steinke testified that she was with Lloyd and LaBrec at
LaRose’s house on the evening of March 13. Between 11:00 p.m. and midnight,
Lloyd went outside to take a phone call, then came back in and told LaBrec they
had to go. When Steinke asked where Lloyd and LaBrec were going, Lloyd
responded that she did not want to know.

¶18 Johnathon Turner, with whom Patterson had been staying, testified
that Patterson told him earlier in the day that he planned to go out with LaBrec and
Lloyd that night. Turner had previously told police that Patterson said he was
getting picked up by someone, but Turner did not know whom. Turner testified

7
No. 2020AP58-CR

that he did not immediately disclose that Patterson was going out with LaBrec and
Lloyd because they were his friends.

¶19 Kolpien confirmed that he had met up with LaBrec and Lloyd at the
Cadott gas station in the early morning hours of March 14. Law enforcement also
obtained video surveillance of Lloyd and LaBrec at the gas station in Cadott.
Kolpien testified that LaBrec and Lloyd told him they had gotten into an argument
with someone who was hurt real bad, but they did not give him details. Kolpien
said they had a discussion about how to get rid of a gun “if you ever had to get rid
of one,” and that Kolpien advised melting it down with a torch. Kolpien
acknowledged that LaBrec left a “cooler” bag with him, but he maintained that he
did not know it contained a rifle. Kolpien threw the bag in a dumpster in Boyd
because LaBrec had asked him to get rid of it. Kolpien later led police to the
dumpster, where they recovered the broken .22 rifle in the bag. Kolpien told
police LaBrec stated he “pulled the trigger,” but Kolpien testified at trial that he
could not really recall who made the statement because he was high on
methamphetamine at the time of the conversation.

¶20 Based on the above evidence, Lloyd requested an instruction on
conspiracy to commit robbery by use of force as a lesser included offense of
conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The circuit court denied the request. The
court granted the State’s request to instruct the jury on several lesser included
offenses on the homicide charge, including homicide by negligent operation of a
dangerous weapon. The jury convicted Lloyd on the charges of attempted armed
robbery and possession of a firearm by a felon, but it acquitted him of all
homicide-related charges.

8
No. 2020AP58-CR

DISCUSSION

¶21 We independently review a circuit court’s refusal to submit a jury
instruction on a lesser included offense as a question of law. State v. Barreau,
2002 WI App 198, ¶17, 257 Wis. 2d 203, 651 N.W.2d 12. A lesser included
offense is one that “does not require proof of any fact in addition to those which
must be proved for the crime charged.” WIS. STAT. § 939.66(1) (2019-20). Here,
the parties agree that conspiracy to commit robbery by threat of force is a lesser
included offense of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Therefore, the only
issue before us is whether the evidence presented at trial provided reasonable
grounds both for acquittal on the greater charge and conviction on the lesser
charge. See Barreau, 257 Wis. 2d 203, ¶17. In considering this question, we
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. Id.

¶22 Lloyd argues that the evidence presented at trial would reasonably
support the theory that Lloyd accompanied LaBrec to rob Patterson, but that Lloyd
did not have a gun with him—having sold, traded, given or loaned the Cobra to
LaBrec. Lloyd notes: (1) it was LaBrec, not Lloyd, who had a grudge against
Patterson and had previously attempted to shoot him; (2) Wooley did not say that
the plan Lloyd disclosed to him to rob Patterson involved a weapon; (3) the jury
acquitted Lloyd of any homicide charges, including by negligent use of a firearm
or as a natural and probable consequence of a conspiracy to commit armed
robbery; (4) LaBrec had a motive to shift blame to Lloyd; and (5) LaBrec was
trying to buy an operable gun while Lloyd was trying to sell the Cobra just hours
before the shooting.

¶23 None of these points reasonably supports the conclusion that Lloyd
and LaBrec conspired to commit a robbery by threat or use of force, rather than by

9
No. 2020AP58-CR

threat or use of a dangerous weapon, given the other evidence at trial. Lloyd was
seen in possession of the presumed murder weapon, the Cobra, just hours before
the shooting. Lloyd was involved in buying ammunition for the Cobra only two
days before the shooting. After the shooting, ammunition for the Cobra was
discovered in the residence where Lloyd was staying, not where LaBrec was
staying. Also after the shooting, LaBrec arranged for the disposal of the .22 rifle,
but not of the Cobra. The fact that the jury acquitted Lloyd of any homicide
charge does not compel the conclusion that it believed LaBrec was in possession
of the Cobra and shot Patterson. Rather, the jury could have believed LaBrec’s
testimony that the Cobra discharged accidentally, and concluded that it was not
reasonably foreseeable that it would discharge.

¶24 In sum, there was no evidence whatsoever that Lloyd transferred the
Cobra to LaBrec before the shooting. The only reasonable conclusion to draw
from the evidence that Lloyd brought a weapon with him to the attempted robbery
and that Patterson was shot with that weapon is that Lloyd was, in fact, using the
weapon during the attempted robbery. Therefore, the circuit court properly
refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of conspiracy to commit
robbery by threat or use of force.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5. (2019-20).

10