By Roger McKinney

rmckinney@joplinglobe.com

The Kansas Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of a Chetopa man in the 2004 death of a Chetopa woman.

Charles Krider, 47, was sentenced in April 2007 to nearly 14 years in prison after a jury in his second trial found him guilty of second-degree murder in the strangulation death of 58-year-old Judith Shrum. A mistrial was declared in Krider’s first trial in 2006 when the jury couldn’t reach a verdict.

At issue in the appeal was the judge’s exclusion of evidence that Shrum’s son-in-law, James Cook, planted Krider’s DNA evidence in Shrum’s house. Krider and Cook worked together at Thermal Engineering International, in Joplin, Mo. Timothy Grillot, Krider’s attorney at trial, said Cook had access to a bandage Krider had discarded at work and had used it to plant Krider’s DNA at Shrum’s house.

The appeals court ruling states that District Judge Robert Fleming evaluated the evidence submitted by the defense and correctly determined that it didn’t connect Cook to the crime.

“The defendant’s proffered evidence was that Cook had a possible motive to commit the crime because his wife would benefit from the inheritance and that as a first-aid officer at the defendant’s place of work, Cook could have the opportunity to collect the defendant’s hair from headgear and blood from used bandages to later plant at the crime scene while staying there overnight. This evidence is nothing more than mere speculation and conjecture, and does not connect the third party to the crime.”

Cook said at Krider’s sentencing hearing in April 2007 that he thought Krider took the job at his workplace so Krider could plan the murder and a way to pin it on him.

The appeals court also determined that the district court didn’t err in denying Grillot’s motion for a change of venue.

Another issue rejected by the appeals court was that testimony from a witness at the second trial that was not heard during the first trial was prosecutorial misconduct. The court ruled that because the evidence was inculpatory, or weighed toward Krider’s guilt, the prosecutor had no duty to disclose the evidence to the defense. The prosecutor would have been required to notify the defense of evidence that pointed toward Krider’s innocence, or exculpatory evidence.

Another rejection

The appeals court also rejected the defense argument on appeal that jury instructions included information about lesser included offenses rather than an “all-or-nothing” verdict on first-degree murder.