Sutherland murder conviction reversed

Sutherland murder conviction reversed

November 29, 2001

CHIP SUTHERLAND

By Aspen C. Emmett
Journal Staff Writer

After eight months of waiting, convicted murderer Chip Sutherland has been granted a retrial in the slaying of his grandmother nearly six years ago.

In March, defense attorney Alex Tejada argued on Sutherland’s behalf that the defendant, just 17 years old at the time of the murder, had been grossly misrepresented by his former attorney, Curt Bobbitt.

Sutherland, now 24, is serving a life sentence plus 36 years for the chilling first-degree murder of Ida Jean Wancura during a botched robbery attempt on Jan. 3, 1996.

During the attack, her husband, Wayne Wancura, also was shot and seriously injured by Antonio Velasquez, who is serving a 45-year sentence for participating in the violent crimes against the well-known ranchers.

In the lengthy March hearing, Tejada charged that Bobbitt "failed to file a motion to suppress the defendant’s confession as involuntary, having been obtained through ‘coercive governmental contact’," according to a written contention filed with the court.

Bobbitt was also accused of "failure to file a motion for change of venue despite representing to the court on May 23, 1996, that he intended to file such motion, and having a continuance granted on the basis of such request."

Further, Tejada argued that Bobbitt "failed to point out the inconsistencies in the testimony of a key witness, Nick Hill," the third teen involved in the botched robbery, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and is serving a 20-year prison sentence.

According to the court document, Bobbitt "failed to explore or argue a comprehensible theory of defense; failed to exercise challenges for cause as fully as he should have; failed to file relevant motions and subpoena relevant witnesses; failed to call any witnesses for the defense; raised no objection or conducted any voir dire as to the introduction of 70 exhibits, including the bloody nightgown worn by the decedent; and failed to cross-examine key witnesses, questioning only 10 of 23 witnesses called by the prosecution."

Finally, Tejada wrote that Bobbitt failed entirely by not investigating the case — something Tejada argued in March could have drastically changed the verdict in regards to first-degree and second-degree murder.

Former Deputy District Attorney Katy Cabot contended that Sutherland had received a fair trial and "the outcome of the case would have remained the same. . . convicted of the most serious charge, first-degree murder."

In the written order granting the retrial, District Court Judge Sharon Hansen stated the people had not supported their argument with any evidence such as affidavits.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury," Hansen wrote. "An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, whether retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure that the trial is fair."

"While justice does not demand errorless representation, attorneys must satisfy minimal standards of competency to render effective and therefore constitutionally acceptable representation."

Hansen outlined in her order how the defense had brought forth the appropriate arguments, leading to the conclusion that Sutherland is indeed entitled to a new trial.

"The court finds that the defense has proven that the defense counsel, Mr. Bobbitt, did provide ineffective assistance of counsel considering the totality of the circumstances," Hansen wrote in her conclusion. "The court finds that Mr. Bobbitt’s ineffectiveness as a defense counsel resulted in substantial prejudice to the defendant. Such conduct was outside the range of competence required of attorneys in criminal cases. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction is reversed."

Tejada, Sutherland’s attorney throughout the motion for retrial, told the Journal that he will continue to represent Sutherland in the new trial, but that he was not at liberty to discuss the case.

A hearing has been set Dec. 6 at 11 a.m. in district court for appearance of counsel, at which Tejada is expected to file a motion for a change of venue.

District Attorney Joe Olt said that despite the original failure by defense to request a change of venue, he does not believe it is necessary to do it six years after the fact.

"They (defense) think it’s their duty to file a change of venue," Olt said. "Personally, I think that the people of this county and this district should be trying their own cases. . . and I think we can seat a jury here."