Day 10 - October 25, 2024

The court included culpable negligence, overruled a defense objection to manslaughter language, and settled four verdict choices. Other instructions remained deferred; text-message completeness and a proposed juror inquiry were also addressed.

Juror No. 2 indicated seeing something during the previous day's courtyard event. No jurors indicated hearing anything, participating, or receiving or reviewing material.

The judge and counsel discussed whether to conduct individual juror follow-up questioning immediately or at the next break.

Juror No. 2 said she saw a courtyard gathering but heard no speakers and remained impartial. Counsel differed over questioning another juror, and the court concluded the inquiry.

The court allowed the State to publish Exhibit 21. Mr. Jay read selected messages and published two images from the extraction before defense counsel requested a bench conference.

Owens objected that the person reading the texts was changing his tone.

Mr. Jay completed publication of selected messages and notes from State's Exhibit 21. The court then allowed defense counsel to approach the bench.

The defense sought clarification about selected text-message readings and raised concerns about omitted context, shared phone use, and the prosecutor’s tone.

The State rested its rebuttal case, and the court invited counsel to approach after requests for further discussion.

The court and counsel discussed tentative jury-return timing, nonbinding closing-argument estimates, and unresolved surrebuttal and text-message issues.

The defense declined surrebuttal with Ms. Boone's agreement. The court explained its responses to concerns about State's Exhibit 21 and scheduled jurors to return at 1:30 for instructions and closing arguments.

The court settled contested self-defense instructions, agreed battered spouse syndrome language, and closing arrangements; the State withdrew its causation request.

The judge discussed an overlooked wording correction in the printed jury copy, and both attorneys accepted correcting it without reprinting.

Cacciatore connected the homicide instructions to the State's suitcase-confinement theory and published State's 17. Owens requested that the jury leave, and the video was paused.

Owens argued that a spectator's crying in front of the jury was prejudicial and considered requesting a curative instruction.

Cacciatore argued for second-degree murder and against self-defense after video playback. Owens objected during the initial-aggressor argument, prompting a bench approach.

Owens challenged closing argument about whether an arm could come out of the suitcase, citing testimony that a hand came out.

After the objection was overruled, Cacciatore challenged self-defense and Boone's credibility, published recordings, and concluded by asking for a second-degree murder verdict.

Owens's introductory defense closing remarks prompted relevance objections and an improper-argument objection, ending with a bench approach.

Jay challenged the relevance of Owens's remarks about coming from a small town and being pleasantly surprised by the hospitality received.

Owens emphasized justified force and the jury's decision-making role. The court overruled an objection, then allowed a bench approach after another.

Jay objected to alleged personal attacks during defense closing, while Owens argued he could criticize the State's case and evidence.

Owens argued that either force justification supported acquittal. The court overruled Jay's improper-argument objection and allowed a bench approach.

Jay objected that Owens was interjecting personal beliefs into his argument about the evidence.

Owens tied the defense theory to trauma and perceived danger, challenged witness accounts, and faced repeated objections to his closing argument.

The State objected to defense closing argument about Moreno's inconsistent statements, disclosure obligations, and criticism of the prosecution.

Owens argued justified force and unintended death, challenged witness accounts, and explained Boone's lies. Several objections were sustained, with two statements struck.

Counsel disputed defense responses to the prosecution’s opening statements and discussed closing argument length and possible participation by a second defense lawyer.

Owens argued coercive control, played two videos, and requested acquittal. The court sustained an objection to his personal-familiarity remark about Boone.

Jay argued that continued suitcase confinement defeated self-defense and supported second-degree murder, then challenged Boone's credibility. Owens objected, prompting a bench approach.

Owens challenged Jay’s self-defense rebuttal, citing prior violence and battered-spouse testimony, then asked about closing argument time.

Jay concluded the prosecution's rebuttal by challenging Boone's account and arguing that the initial-aggressor instructions defeated self-defense despite battered spouse syndrome.

The court reads four verdict choices, requires unanimity and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and explains deliberation rules and exhibit access.

Jay requested no changes to the instructions and did not object to any grammatical strike-throughs, while Owens noted objections previously mentioned in conference.

Six jurors began deliberations after eight alternates were discharged. The court overruled a defense objection to juror notes and directed exhibit review, excluding the bat.