EVERETT — The state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to grant a new trial in a 2021 Everett bus shooting, despite an appeal from prosecutors.
In October 2021, Alejandro Meza was convicted of first-degree manslaughter after a fight on a Community Transit bus got out of hand. When the decision was read, he cried.
But in March 2022, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Richard Okrent ordered a mistrial, granting him another opportunity in front of his peers. The judge agreed with Meza’s defense attorney that an accumulation of “errors” in the jury trial by deputy prosecutor Adam Sturdivant may have prejudiced the jury when it convicted the defendant.
Okrent said Sturdivant “misled the jury” with several statements, including comments about Meza’s right to remain silent, misstating the burden of proof and classifying Meza’s shooting as an “execution.”
The prosecutor’s office was reviewing the Court of Appeals decision Monday and was still weighing the “appropriate next steps,” chief of staff Michael Held said.
Sturdivant could not be immediately reached for comment.
Meza was initially charged with second-degree murder for killing Gene Peterson on a Community Transit bus.
The defendant was going to work in Mulkiteo. He wasn’t able to drive because he had been diagnosed with epilepsy, and his seizures could cause him to black out, according to his defense attorney.
According to the defendant’s trial testimony, Meza got into a fight with Peterson, who was riding with a friend. It reportedly started when Meza confronted Peterson about smoking drugs on the bus.
Meza testified that Peterson threatened to “put him to sleep.” Peterson’s friend also warned the defendant that Peterson was dangerous and not to mess with him, according to court documents.
Surveillance video showed Peterson punching Meza in the face. The footage of the altercation was shown to jurors multiple times over the course of the trial.
A fight broke out. Meza said he felt a hand around his waist where he kept his gun, and thought it was Peterson’s hand. Security footage showed it was the hand of Peterson’s friend.
The defendant fired one shot into Peterson’s stomach. He told police it was an accident.
The first bullet brought Peterson to his knees, turning his back to Meza. A second later, the defendant fired another shot into his back, piercing his right lung and liver. That shot was intentional, Meza reportedly told police.
Officers tried to save Peterson, but he died at the scene. He was 33.
Meza made statements to police after they read him his rights. But his statements didn’t go into the same level of detail as what came out at trial.
Sturdivant argued this omission of details, such as Meza feeling Peterson reach for his weapon and that the defendant suffered a seizure in the back of a police car, was sufficient enough to impeach the defendant on the stand, according to the appellate court ruling.
The way the prosecutor phrased his cross-examination contained an “improper comment on Meza’s exercise of his right to remain silent,” the judicial panel wrote.
Despite being warned by the judge after Meza’s cross-examination, Sturdivant made six more comments in closing arguments that misstated the defendant’s right to remain silent, the court said.
“These statements, implied again and again throughout the State’s closing, that Meza had a duty to supplement or correct his earlier statement to officers,” the judges said.
The appellate decision also claimed prosecutors misstated the burden of proof to the jury.
In the trial, Sturdivant asserted, “There is no benefit of the doubt, ladies and gentleman, when it comes to the amount of force that you apply, right?”
The appellate ruling noted that throughout a criminal proceeding, the accused is “entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt,” and when the accused raises a self-defense claim, “the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of self-defense.”
Prosecutors conceded in their appeal that this argument was an error.
The deputy prosecutor also compared Meza’a actions to an “execution.” The appellate court agreed with Meza’s defense attorney that this could suggest the shooting was premeditated, even though the defendant was not charged with premeditated murder.
Over the course of the trial, prosecutors consistently used altered video footage of the shooting to the jury, according to court documents. The video was artificially slowed down, appearing to emphasize the time between Meza’s first and second shot, according to the ruling. In the unaltered footage, only one second elapsed between the first and second shot.
The judges ruled the unaltered footage did not display a “reasonable inference” that the defendant executed Peterson, concurring that the prosecutor’s comments prejudiced the jury against Meza.
Jonathan Tall: 425-339-3486; jonathan.tall@heraldnet.com; Twitter: @EDHJonTall.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
