The Virginia Court of Appeals has denied Robert Allen Dutton’s appeal in his first-degree murder conviction in the Jan. 3, 2007 shooting death of his estranged wife, Sandra Lambert Dutton, in her Ivanhoe home.

Dutton was convicted in Carroll County Circuit Court on Dec. 4, 2007 of first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and statutory burglary with the intent to commit murder. He was sentenced to two life terms in prison plus an additional three years.

Sandra Lambert Dutton, 41, was murdered at her home on 47 Jasper Lane in Ivanhoe on the evening of Jan. 3, 2007. She had been shot three times with a shotgun, two of which were described as fatal shots to the head and back. She had taken out a protective order against Robert Dutton three months earlier, on Sept. 16, 2006, giving her sole possession of the property and ordering Robert Dutton to have no contact with her.

Commonwealth’s Attorney Gregory G. Goad’s case was built on three main factors. The first was a confession Robert Dutton made to Carroll County Investigators Fred Bobbitt and Venton Smith in which Dutton is attributed to saying “I killed her,” and “Oh Lord, Oh Lord, I don’t know why I done this. I wish you could take that gun and just kill me now because I can’t live with what I have done.”

Goad’s case was also built around analysis of a mixture of Robert Dutton’s and Sandra Dutton’s DNA on a shotgun shell found at the crime scene, and a lab examination matching an unfired shell found in Robert Dutton’s pickup truck the following day that was the same size shot and had the same machine marks as fired shotgun shells found at the crime scene.

Robert Dutton’s defense attorney Jonathon Venzie asked the Virginia Court of Appeals to consider three questions in the appeal — (1) if trial judge Brett Geisler made an error in failing to suppress the verbal statements Robert Dutton made to investigators, (2) if the trial judge committed an error in failing to suppress forensic DNA evidence on the spent shotgun shell casing, and (3) if the trial judge committed an error in failing to suppress expert forensic tool mark evidence showing that a spent shotgun shell casing recovered at the crime scene was made on the same machine as an unfired shotgun shell recovered from Robert Dutton’s truck.

As for the first question about Dutton’s verbal statements, the Court of Appeals noted that Dutton was advised of his Miranda rights, which he waived and indicated he wanted to speak to the police. Dutton then agreed to come to the Carroll County Sheriff’s Department to discuss the matter further. The officers took him to an interview room and questioned him for several hours.

“During the conversation, which was unrecorded, (Robert Dutton) made statements incriminating himself in (Sandra) Dutton’s killing. (Dutton) concedes the police complied with all Miranda requirements and that, after receiving the Miranda warnings, he agreed to talk to the officers. (Dutton) argues, however, that the trial court should have excluded the police officer’s testimony about (Dutton’s) statements because the police did not record the interview,” The Court of Appeals’ statement reads.

Dutton does not point to any source of authority for this proposition but contends an evolving sense of due process and need for accuracy required the interview be recorded for his statement to be admissible.

“Neither the due process requirements of the United States Constitution nor those found in the Virginia Constitution include such a requirement, and this Court will not create one,” The Virginia Court of Appeals’ statement said. “Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.”

As to whether the trial judge committed an error in failing to suppress forensic DNA evidence on the spent shotgun shell casing, the Virginia Court of Appeals offered this response in denying the appeal: “This Court does not review such decisions de novo. This standard, if nothing else, means the trial judge’s ruling will not be reversed simply because an appellate court disagrees. Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred. Second, every fact, ‘however remote or insignificant, that tends to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue is relevant.’ Put another way, evidence has relevance if it tends to cast any light on any material point.”

As for the third question, the Commonwealth introduced evidence that a mixture of DNA consistent with that of Sandra Dutton’s and Robert Dutton’s was found on a spent shotgun shell located at the scene of the murder. Robert Dutton contends the evidence lacked relevance because he had lived at the residence, and presumably shed DNA there, until September of 2006.

“This evidence was relevant, however, as the presence of (Robert Dutton’s) DNA on a shotgun casing found at the scene of (Sandra) Dutton’s shooting tended to connect him to the killing. The shooting occurred in January 2007, and (Robert Dutton) had not resided there since Sept. 2006,” The Court of Appeals statement read. “The scientific evidence served to corroborate (Robert Dutton’s) own statements to the police that he had shot and killed Dutton. The DNA evidence was relevant, and its probative value outweighed its potential for undue prejudice. Additionally, the day Dutton’s body was discovered, the police found two unfired shotgun shells in the glove compartment of (Dutton’s) vehicle. David Gibbs, an expert in firearms and tool marks, examined the shotgun shells recovered from (Dutton’s) vehicle and compared them to a shotgun shell found at the scene of Dutton’s killing. Gibbs testified all the shells were produced by the same manufacturer’s bunter, which imprinted markings on the metal portion of the base of the shell. The markings on the shell indicated they were ‘R.P, .12 gauge’ shells. Gibbs testified any given bunter could produce up to five million shotgun shells. This evidence was also relevant, however, as it tended to connect a shotgun shell found near Dutton’s dead body to unfired shotgun shells located in (Robert Dutton’s) vehicle. The consistencies in the shells linked (Dutton) to the crime scene, and corroborated his statements to the police. This Court finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the relevant DNA evidence and expert tool mark testimony.”