E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT, IN AND FOR TAMA COUNTY

THE STATE OF IOWA, )

)
Plaintiff, ) FECR015274
)
vs. )
)
TAIT OTIS PURK, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
) OF LAW, AND VERDICT
Defendant. )

This case was tried to the Court November 6-9, 2017, upon Defendant’s written
and oral waiver of trial by jury. The State of Iowa was represented by Tama County
Attorney Brent Heeren and Assistant Attorney General Laura Roan. Defendant was
personally present at all times and represented by Attorneys Scott Hunter and Aaron
Siebrecht. The Court received testimony and evidence from both parties and the cause
was submitted. After reviewing all the evidence in this case, the Court hereby returns
its verdict in open court.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In April 2000, Cora Okonski, a then 23-year-old female, was engaged to

be married to and lived with Defendant, Tait Otis Purk, at 404 East Fifth Street, Tama,
Tama County, Iowa. This is a one-bedroom, one-bathroom house on the south side of
East Fifth Street, with the front door facing north. Ms. Okonski’s son, Austin, who was
almost two years old, also lived at the residence. Austin’s biological father is Jim
Lambert. Ms. Okonski and Defendant first met in May 1999 at the funeral for
Defendant’s brother.

2. April 16, 2000, was Palm Sunday. Ms. Okonski began the day by taking
her son to church. Shortly after lunch, Ms. Okonski went to Belle Plaine to visit a
relative of Defendant for a birthday party. Ms. Okonski was looking to acquire
methamphetamine during this trip to Belle Plaine. Ms. Okonski did not have
transportation to Belle Plaine, so she asked Ricky Jo Weber (n/k/a Sanchez) for a ride.
Ms. Weber was a coworker of Ms. Okonski at a local diner and lived in a house located
across the alley to the south of the home Ms. Okonski shared with Defendant.
Ms. Weber and her roommate, Kathy Hannan, drove Ms. Okonski to Belle Plaine.
Ms. Weber and Ms. Hannan did not go into the Belle Plaine residence. Rather, they
dropped off Ms. Okonski and returned to Tama. Ms. Okonski left Austin in the care of
Defendant for this visit to Belle Plaine.
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3. While at the Belle Plaine residence, Ms. Okonski made telephone contact
with her father, Jerry Okonski, four to six times. Ms. Okonski was helping a friend at the
Belle Plaine residence work out some problems with a computer. Jerry Okonski worked
with computers as part of his profession and was able to provide assistance over the
phone. Jerry Okonski characterized the calls as “normal” and did not detect any stress
or issues with Ms. Okonski during these calls. According to Cecelia Okonski,
Ms. Okonski’s mother, Ms. Okonski was upbeat that day. Cecelia Okonski formed this
conclusion from phone conversations she took part in that day with Ms. Okonski.

4. Sometime in the early evening that same day, Ms. Okonski called
Ms. Weber and asked for a ride home. Ms. Weber returned to the Belle Plaine
residence, picked up Ms. Okonski, and drove her back to her East Fifth Street residence
in Tama. When they arrived at Ms. Okonski’s home, Ms. Weber went inside with
Ms. Okonski at Ms. Okonski’s request. Ms. Okonski appeared nervous to be returning
home. Defendant was home when they arrived and was quiet. Ms. Weber did not stay
long before returning to her home. A short time later, at approximately 9:00 p.m.,
Ms. Okonski came to Ms. Weber’s house. Ms. Okonski was alone. Ms. Okonski was
upset. She asked Ms. Weber for a notepad. She also asked Ms. Weber to open her
windows and keep an eye on Ms. Okonski’s house. From this interaction and other
statements made by Ms. Okonski, Ms. Weber concluded Ms. Okonski was afraid of
Defendant and concerned for her own personal safety. Ms. Weber gave Ms. Okonski
a green spiral notebook identified at trial as State Exhibit 5.

5. Ms. Weber took Ms. Okonski’s request seriously. Ms. Weber opened her
windows and attempted to keep an eye on the house as requested. As part of her effort
to watch the house, at one point Ms. Weber took her three dogs for a walk. She walked
the dogs around the block and through the alleyways near Ms. Okonski’s residence. In
total, Ms. Weber spent about two hours attempting to watch the house and listen for
anything unusual. The primary door used by Defendant and Ms. Okonski to enter and
leave their residence was at the back of the house on the south side. This door opened
facing east. From her residence, Ms. Weber had a partially obstructed view of this door.
Ms. Okonski’s residence also had a functional front door on the north side of the house
that faced East Fifth Street. Ms. Weber did not hear any voices or noises coming from
404 East Fifth Street at any time throughout the night, nor did she see anyone leave.

6. Ms. Okonski returned to her home after getting the notepad from
Ms. Weber. Defendant and Austin were also home. Ms. Okonski used the notepad to
write a letter to Defendant in an effort to express her feelings. (See State Exhibit 5). In
this letter, Ms. Okonski expressed both frustration with their relationship and excitement
about the upcoming marriage. Ms. Okonski’s letter referenced Defendant’s prior
relationship. From the context of the letter, Ms. Okonski felt Defendant’s bad
experience with that relationship was prohibiting him from fully committing to marriage,
a marriage she was excited about. The following portions of the letter illustrate the
juxtaposition between Ms. Okonski’s excitement for the marriage and the tension of
their relationship:

2
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Maybe someday you will let yourself love, deeply love again, feeling love
even though you don’t really want it – so you create problems just to get it
away.

[O]ne more month and I will be Mrs. Tait Purk. I’m nervouse (sic) about it.
Being your wife gives me a little better chance on getting the love in your
heart without the head games.

[I] will not give you another memory of a girl you love so bad – but ain’t
there. I love you.

Defendant and Ms. Okonski had plans to get married on May 16, 2000, the one-year
anniversary of the day they first met.

7. At some point after writing this letter, Defendant and Ms. Okonski got into
an argument. During this argument, Ms. Okonski threatened to call the police on
Defendant and tell them what she knew about a burglary she committed with him at the
Jiffy South convenience store in Tama and the theft of an S-10 pickup truck from a car
lot in Grinnell. This enraged Defendant. He ran across the room, grabbed Ms. Okonski
by the throat with one hand, and slammed her to the ground on her back and killed her.
Defendant then stored Ms. Okonski’s body in a closet in the bathroom overnight and
disposed of it the next day. Ms. Okonski’s body has yet to be located or recovered.

8. On Monday, April 17, 2000, at around noon, Ms. Weber returned to

Ms. Okonski’s residence under a ruse to check on her. Defendant told Ms. Weber that
Ms. Okonski was not home because she had gone to the store to get cigarettes. Ms.
Weber saw no signs of a struggle at the house and did not make any report to the police
despite her interactions with Ms. Okonski and her surveillance activities the night
before.

9. On Tuesday, April 18, 2000, Defendant contacted Jerry and Cecelia

Okonski and told them he had not seen Ms. Okonski since Sunday evening. Defendant
told the Okonskis that Ms. Okonski had left to get cigarettes at the store and did not
return. Defendant asked the Okonskis if they had heard from Ms. Okonski and asked if
they could come and pick up Austin because Defendant could not care for him while at
work. The Okonskis were not immediately surprised or troubled by Defendant’s report
because Ms. Okonski had a history of running away from home beginning around the
age of 16. However, they were surprised that Ms. Okonski left without taking Austin
with her. After about four days had passed, the Okonskis suspected something was
afoul because historically when Ms. Okonski would “run away” she would always let the
Okonskis know her location. The phone conversations on Sunday April 16, 2000, was
the last time the Okonskis had any contact with their daughter.

10. The Okonskis drove from their home in the Chicago, Illinois, area to Tama
on Tuesday April 18, 2000, to pick up Austin. When they arrived, Defendant had all of
Austin’s things packed up and at the curb. Defendant was crying and told the Okonskis

3
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

he was very sorry that Ms. Okonski had left. Defendant did not give the Okonskis any
indication that he and Ms. Okonski had a dispute on Palm Sunday evening. That same
day Defendant contacted the Tama Police Department about Ms. Okonski being a
“missing person.” He was provided with a missing person’s packet which he completed
and returned the next day. This was the start of the investigation into Ms. Okonski’s
disappearance by Detective John Carr. As part of this investigation, Defendant turned
over the notebook that contains the letter to Defendant from Ms. Okonski. (See State
Exhibit 5).

11. Ms. Okonski had mental health issues as a child which resulted in
multiple hospitalizations and placement in a residential facility at the age of 16. As part
of the support provided Ms. Okonski at the residential facility, assistance was given
Ms. Okonski in applying for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits through the
Social Security Administration. Beginning in 1995, Ms. Okonski was deemed eligible
and began receiving monthly SSI benefits. Ms. Okonski received payments nearly
monthly from November 1995 through May 2000. During this period there are some
months in which no payments were made, followed directly by a month when a larger
than usual payment was made. From the records (See State Exhibit 16), it appears
that back payments were made to Ms. Okonski after previous payments had been
missed. From May 1996 through May 2000, Ms. Okonski received and cashed benefit
checks every month except for July 1997. The missed payment from July 1997 was
included in the August 1997 payment. Ms. Okonski did not cash an SSI benefit check
after April 2000. Her May 2000, SSI check was cashed by Defendant. He first forged
Ms. Okonski’s endorsement on the back of the check and then added his own
endorsement.

12. Additional facts relevant to the Court’s Verdict are contained in the
Analysis section below.

APPLICABLE LAW

It is fundamental in every criminal case that a defendant is presumed innocent

and this presumption persists throughout a trial unless and until the State, through
competent evidence, carries its burden to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (1981). Iowa law defines
reasonable doubt as follows:

A reasonable doubt is one that fairly and naturally arises from the
evidence in the case, or from the lack or failure of evidence produced by
the State. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and
common sense, and not the mere possibility of innocence. A reasonable
doubt is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate
to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such
a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely
and act upon it. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not
mean proof beyond all possible doubt.

4
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 100.10.

Defendant is charged with one count of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of
Iowa Code Section 707.2(1). Iowa Code Section 707.2(1) (1999) reads:

A person commits murder in the first decree when the person commits
murder under any of the following circumstances:

1. The person willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation kills another

person.

The charge of Murder in the First Degree contains the lesser included offense of Murder
in the Second Degree under Iowa Code Section 707.3.1 Iowa Code Section 707.3
(1999) reads:

A person commits murder in the second degree when the person commits
murder which is not murder in the first degree.

Iowa Code Section 707.1 (1999) defines murder as when “a person [] kills another
person with malice aforethought either express or implied.”

To establish Defendant’s guilt, the burden is on the State to prove each of the
following elements of Murder in the First Degree beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. On or about the 16th day of April, 2000, the Defendant grabbed, choked,
and slammed Cora Okonski to the floor;

2. Cora Okonski died as a result of being grabbed, choked, and slammed to

the floor;

3. The Defendant acted with malice aforethought; and

4. The Defendant acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and with a

specific intent to kill Cora Okonski.

Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 700.1. If the State has proven only elements 1, 2, and 3
beyond a reasonable doubt, Defendant is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree. See
Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 700.13. If the State has failed to prove either elements 1,
2, or 3 beyond a reasonable doubt, Defendant is not guilty.

1
Under Iowa Code Section 802.1, neither Murder in the First Degree nor Murder in the
Second Degree is time barred by a statute of limitations. However, other lesser
included offenses that would normally apply for a charge of Murder in the First Degree
are not applicable in this case because prosecution of those offenses is time barred
under the three-year statute of limitations contained in Iowa Code Section 802.3.
5
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

"Malice" is a state of mind which leads one to intentionally do a wrongful act to

the injury of another out of actual hatred, or with an evil or unlawful purpose. It may be
established by evidence of actual hatred, or by proof of a deliberate or fixed intent to
do injury. It may be found from the acts and conduct of the defendant, and the means
used in doing the wrongful and injurious act. Malice requires only such deliberation that
would make a person appreciate and understand the nature of the act and its
consequences, as distinguished from an act done in the heat of passion. Iowa Criminal
Jury Instruction 700.7.

"Malice aforethought" is a fixed purpose or design to do some physical harm to

another which exists before the act is committed. It does not have to exist for any
particular length of time. Id.

“Willful” means intentional or by fixed design or purpose and not accidental. Iowa
Criminal Jury Instruction 700.5.

“To deliberate” is to weigh in one’s mind, to consider, to contemplate, or to

reflect. Id.

“Premeditate” is to think or ponder upon a matter before acting. Id.

Deliberation and premeditation need not exist for any particular length of time
before the act. Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 700.6.

ANALYSIS

At the heart of the State’s case are two separate admissions/confessions

Defendant made to non-law enforcement witnesses. The first set of admissions was
introduced by the State through the credible testimony of Chad Rogers. Mr. Rogers
first became acquainted with Defendant in the late 2000 time frame from time they
spent together in a halfway house in Marshalltown, Iowa. During this same time frame,
Mr. Rogers and Defendant also worked together at a local meat packing plant. For a
time after leaving the halfway house, Mr. Rogers and Defendant stayed in touch and
would “hang out” together on occasion at Andy Jass’ house. Andy Jass was a mutual
friend of Mr. Rogers and the Defendant from their stay at the halfway house. Mr. Jass
had a shop at his residence that was used for working on cars. Andy Jass’ house was
also a place where many people routinely gathered to use methamphetamine. Chad
Rogers testified that on one occasion while he was with Defendant at Mr. Jass’
residence, Defendant told Mr. Rogers that the truck Defendant was driving “might have
cost me a life sentence.” Mr. Rogers also testified that Defendant separately stated
that he (Defendant) had to kill a girlfriend because of a stolen truck and a burglary.
Mr. Rogers also testified that Defendant stated this girlfriend had a small child. Finally,
Mr. Rogers testified that Defendant was driving a black S-10 pickup truck at the time.
Mr. Rogers interpreted these statements by Defendant about killing his girlfriend as a

6
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

threat to Mr. Rogers. This paranoia caused Mr. Rogers to flee the state of Iowa shortly
after Defendant made these statements.

The second set of admissions was introduced by the State through the testimony
of Sean Ward. Mr. Ward was in federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, with Defendant
in about 2004-2005. He had not known Defendant prior to their meeting in prison.
Mr. Ward is originally from Iowa, but not the Tama County area, and testified he had
never been to Tama prior to his role as a witness in this case. Mr. Ward was serving a
sentence for the federal offense of being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm. His
conviction was out of the Southern District of Iowa. Mr. Ward testified that on multiple
occasions in the late 2004/early 2005 time frame, Defendant discussed a prior girlfriend
named “Cora.” Sometimes these discussions included only Mr. Ward. At other times,
multiple inmates were present, including Dennis Marcussen, who was Defendant’s
cellmate for a time. The Court finds Mr. Ward’s testimony to be credible.

Mr. Ward testified that over the course of their multiple discussions about “Cora,”
Defendant made the following admissions:

- Cora stayed (lived) with Defendant and they used to fight a lot;
- On one occasion during a fight with Cora, Defendant ran across the room,
grabbed her by the throat, and slammed her head into the floor killing her;2
- Defendant said he initially thought he had only knocked her out, but then
realized he had killed her;
- Defendant did this because Cora threatened to call the cops on him;
- The fight where Defendant slammed Cora to the floor killing her took place in
the kitchen;
- After killing Cora, Defendant took her body and put it in a closet in the
bathroom overnight;
- The next morning while in the bathroom, Defendant opened up the closet
door, slapped her, and made a comment about her not being able to contact
the police;
- Defendant took Cora’s body to a state park and buried it in a hole so deep he
needed to make steps to get out;
- Defendant got tired of carrying the body, so he drug it part of the way by her
hair;
- Defendant covered the burial site with leaves and sticks;
- Defendant went back to the site sometime later and could not tell anything
was buried there;
- Defendant said that Cora had a small child at the time, but did not give a
name;
- Defendant had the child for a couple of days and then called Cora’s parents
to come get the child and told them that Cora had disappeared;
- Defendant said Cora’s family lived in the Chicago area;

2
Sean Ward demonstrated during his testimony at trial the action of the “grabbing” by
the throat and “slamming” to the floor.
7
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

- Defendant said Cora’s parents did come and pick up the child.

Mr. Ward also testified that after being moved from Leavenworth to the United States
Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, he contacted his grandfather to see if his
grandfather could confirm if a girl named Cora was missing in Tama County. After his
grandfather made these inquiries, Mr. Ward was visited by law enforcement officers
from Tama County. Mr. Ward did not know the officers were coming, and he did not ask
for anything in return for his testimony. Mr. Ward has not received any consideration for
his testimony, but such a benefit is always possible.

Corroboration of Confessions/Admissions

Under Iowa law, including Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.21(4), an admission
or confession by a defendant, without sufficient corroboration, is insufficient to sustain a
conviction. The Iowa Supreme Court has stated:

Corroborating evidence is sufficient to support a conviction based on a

confession when it tends to “confirm[ ] some material fact connecting the
defendant with the crime.” State v. Robertson, 351 N.W.2d 790, 793
(Iowa 1984). It is sufficient as long as it supports the content of the
confession and if, together with the confession, proves the elements of
the charge against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Wescott, 130 Iowa 1, 8, 104 N.W. 341, 344 (1905). Corroborating
evidence may be either direct or circumstantial. See Liggins, 524 N.W.2d
at 187. It need not be strong evidence, “nor need it go to the whole of the
case so long as it confirms some material fact connecting the defendant
with the crime.” Id. Circumstantial corroborating evidence may include
several facts that, when combined, support the admission. Id.

State v. Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 139 (Iowa 2011) (emphasis added). To be material,
a fact must be “significant or essential to the issue or matter at hand, [and make] a
difference in the result to be reached in a given case.” See Black's Law Dictionary
(10th ed. 2014), available at Westlaw BLACKS. The State presented credible evidence
of multiple material facts that, taken together, corroborate the admissions made by
Defendant to Chad Rogers and Sean Ward that Defendant killed Cora Okonski.

First, in admissions Defendant made to Chad Rogers, Defendant disclosed the

motive for the killing of Cora was to keep her from reporting him to the police for the
theft the S-10 pickup truck Defendant was driving and a burglary Defendant had
committed at a convenience store. Defendant made a more general statement of this
motive to Sean Ward, telling Ward that Cora had threatened to call the cops on
Defendant. This motive is corroborated by other credible evidence presented by the
State. In his testimony, Jeremy Purk, Defendant’s nephew and a hostile witness for the
State, confirmed that Defendant drove an S-10 pickup truck in 2000 at the time he was
in a relationship with Ms. Okonski. Jeremy Purk also testified that he, Defendant, and
Ms. Okonski took part in the burglary of a local convenience store, Jiffy South. Tama

8
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

County Sheriff’s Deputy Bruce Rhoads testified that there was a burglary of the Jiffy
South convenience store in September 1999. Deputy Rhoads also testified that an
S-10 pickup truck was stolen from a car lot in Grinnell, Iowa, in January 2000.
Defendant has not been convicted of the convenience store burglary; however, on
July 13, 2006, Defendant was convicted of Theft in the Second Degree for stealing
the S-10 pickup truck. (See State Exhibit 15). Defendant pled guilty to this offense.

Although motive is not an element of murder, motive is relevant to establishing

the element of malice aforethought. See State v. Nelson, 791 N.W.2d 414, 426 (Iowa
2010) (“Motive can be relevant to whether a defendant acted with malice
aforethought.”); State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6, 21 (Iowa 2006) (recognizing “[a]
defendant’s state of mind and motivation at the time of the crime” are relevant in
establishing malice aforethought); and State v. Hoffer, 383 N.W.2d 543, 549 (Iowa
1986) (“Although motive is not a necessary element of murder, lack of motive may be
considered in determining whether an assailant acted with malice aforethought.”).
Because Defendant’s motive for killing Ms. Okonski is relevant in establishing malice
aforethought, the independently established facts that Defendant did burglarize a
convenience store and did steal the S-10 pickup truck are material, and these material
facts confirm a significant portion of Defendant’s admissions to Rogers and Ward. See
State v. Robertson, 351 N.W.2d at 793.

Second, Defendant admitted to Sean Ward that Defendant killed Cora by

grabbing her by the neck and slamming her to the ground. The manner in which
Defendant admitted killing Cora was corroborated by two additional witnesses produced
by the State. Josh York, a longtime acquaintance of Defendant who grew up in Tama,
credibly testified that in about 1999 he met Ms. Okonski on one or two occasions.
Ms. Okonski and Defendant were living together at the time. On one of these occasions
at Defendant’s home, Mr. York witnessed Defendant choke Ms. Okonski until she
passed out. Similarly, Tarah Bear, a friend of Defendant’s who has known him for 35
years, testified in the State’s case-in-chief. Ms. Bear testified3 that on one occasion
during the time frame Ms. Okonski was living with Defendant, Ms. Bear went to the
residence to pick up Ms. Okonski for work. When she arrived, Ms. Okonski was not
ready to go; rather, she was sleeping on the couch. Ms. Bear attempted to wake
Ms. Okonski but was unsuccessful. Ms. Bear saw red marks on Ms. Okonski’s neck.
Defendant was present and told Ms. Bear that “the bitch had to be put in her place.”
While telling Ms. Bear this, Defendant also demonstrated for Ms. Bear what he had
done. Defendant put his hands together, facing each other with fingertips nearly
touching in a manner Ms. Bear interpreted as a choke hold.4

3
It was apparent to the Court from observations of her mannerisms and voice inflection
that Ms. Bear was reluctant to provide testimony against Defendant. Whether this
reluctance was due to fear or loyalty is of no import. What is significant is that from the
content of Ms. Bear’s testimony and its own observations, the Court found Ms. Bear to
be extremely credible.
4
Ms. Bear visually demonstrated this action in court.
9
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

The Court finds the testimony of York and Bear establishes material facts that
corroborate Defendant’s admissions to Sean Ward in two ways. Specifically, evidence
that Defendant choked Ms. Okonski to the point of injury at least two times prior to the
events to which Defendant confessed to killing her is relevant to establish that grabbing
Ms. Okonski by the neck was the common method by which he carried out violent acts
toward her when he was angry. This conduct is also relevant to establish Defendant’s
intent to do harm to Ms. Okonski. See Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.404(b).5
Moreover, evidence that Defendant was violent to Ms. Okonski in the past is material,
relevant, and probative on the issue of malice aforethought. Id.; See State v. Taylor,
689 N.W.2d 116, 125 (Iowa 2004) (stating “defendant’s prior acts of violence toward his
[significant other were] relevant to his motive and intent on the day [of the alleged
offense.]”) and Newell, 710 N.W.2d at 21 (stating “[w]e have held the prior relationship
between the defendant and the victim, including bad feelings, quarrels, and physical
acts, is a circumstance that may be shown to prove the defendant’s state of mind and
motivation at the time of the crime.”).

Third, Defendant told Sean Ward that Defendant and Cora were having a fight
at their residence at the time he killed her. The testimony of Ricky Jo Sanchez
corroborated Defendant’s admission that he and Cora were having a fight at their
residence on the night of April 16, 2000. Ms. Sanchez had repeated contact with
Ms. Okonski that day. Notably, within an hour after dropping Ms. Okonski off at her
residence with Defendant, Ms. Okonski came to Ms. Sanchez’s home and asked for a
notebook she could use to write a letter to Defendant because they were having trouble
communicating. Ms. Okonski also expressed fear for her physical safety at the hands
of Defendant due to the current tension between them. Ms. Okonski also asked
Ms. Sanchez to keep her windows open and keep an eye on Ms. Okonski’s home. Like
the other evidence highlighted above, this corroborating evidence is material to the
issues of intent, motive, and malice aforethought. See Nelson, 791 N.W.2d at 426;
Newell, 710 N.W.2d at 21-2; Taylor, 689 N.W.2d at 125; and Iowa Rule of Evidence
5.404(b). Additionally, the testimony of Ms. Sanchez is further corroborated by the
existence and content of State’s Exhibit 5, the notebook Ms. Sanchez gave to
Ms. Okonski on the evening of April 16, 2000, and turned over to law enforcement by
Defendant during the course of the investigation.

Finally, in addition to the corroborating material facts outlined above, there are
multiple facts established by the State in their case-in-chief that the Court finds do not
rise to the level of “material” for purposes of Rule 2.21(4) but nevertheless corroborate
other portions of Defendant’s admissions to Sean Ward. Mr. Ward had no ties to Tama
County and did not know Defendant or Ms. Okonski prior to his meeting Defendant in
prison. Yet, as part of his testimony, he knew that Ms. Okonski’s first name was Cora,

5
The Court conducted the required balancing test under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.403
and found the probative value of this evidence is not substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, especially given that this case was tried to the Court.
10
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

she had a very young child at the time, her family lived in the Chicago area, and her
parents came and picked up the child a couple days after Defendant killed her.
Mr. Ward’s knowledge of these ancillary facts significantly added to the credibility and
reliability of his testimony.

Defense Evidence

It is necessary to briefly address Defendant’s assertion that Cora Okonski is not

dead; rather, she voluntarily disappeared. Before doing so, however, it is important for
the Court to reiterate that Defendant is under no obligation to present any evidence or to
prove anything. The presumption of innocence alone requires the Court to find
Defendant not guilty unless and until the State establishes every element of an offense
beyond a reasonable doubt. However, once a defendant presents evidence or makes
an argument, the Court, as the finder of fact, is free to scrutinize the veracity of that
evidence and the plausibility of the argument.

Defendant argues Ms. Okonski disappeared on her own and is probably still
alive. More specifically, Defendant argues the State has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt Ms. Okonski is dead, or if she is, that she died in April 2000 as
alleged. Defendant relies on the fact that Ms. Okonski’s body has not been recovered
and that purported eyewitnesses saw Ms. Okonski in the Chicago area after April 16,
2000. Regarding the failure of the State to locate Ms. Okonski’s body, this fact is not
dispositive and does not prevent the Court from finding beyond a reasonable doubt
Ms. Okonski is dead. See e.g., State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593, 597-98 (Mo. banc
1991); People v. Nowicki, 385 Ill.App.3d 53, 323 Ill. Dec. 870, 894 N.E.2d 896 (1st Dist.
2008); and State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55, 767 N.W.2d 784 (2009). As to the alleged
eyewitnesses in the Chicago area who identified Ms. Okonski’s picture to law
enforcement during the initial investigation as someone they saw alive after April 16,
2000, the Court wholly discounts this hearsay evidence as unreliable. On the
corroborated admissions by Defendant to Rogers and Ward alone, the Court finds
beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Okonski is dead and that Defendant killed her on
April 16, 2000. However, the Court’s conclusion that Ms. Okonski died on April 16,
2000, is further supported by two additional key facts. First, from 1995 until April 2000,
Ms. Okonski routinely, if not always regularly, arranged for and obtained her SSI
benefits. Ms. Okonski last claimed her monthly SSI benefit payment in April 2000 and
has not done so since. Second, Ms. Okonski has not had any contact with her parents
or her son since April 16, 2000.

Lastly, the Court finds it significant and probative that Defendant has attempted
to manipulate the evidence in this case in at least two ways. First, in a letter written by
Defendant to “Cora” and sent to Cecelia and Jerry Okonski in 2001 (State Exhibit 4),
Defendant attempted to plant the narrative that Ms. Okonski was still alive and
attempting to contact Defendant’s daughter. Second, and more significantly, Defendant
attempted to unduly influence the testimony of Dennis Marcussen by sending him a
letter in January 2017, purportedly from Defendant’s son (State Exhibit 20), which set
out specifically how Marcussen needed to testify in order to counter the incriminating

11
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

testimony regarding Defendant’s confession that Sean Ward was expected to provide.
The Court finds this evidence is probative to Defendant’s consciousness of guilt, adds
further credibility to Ward’s testimony, and detracts from Mr. Marcussen’s credibility.
See State v. Stufflebeam, 260 N.W.2d 409, 412 (Iowa 1977) (stating “[a]n attempt by a
party to improperly [] influence a witness is thought to be an admission by conduct [and
has] independent probative value on the issue to be tried.”); and United States v.
Garrison, 168 F.3d 1089, 1093 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding that attempts by a defendant to
influence a witness in connection with the crime charged can be probative of that
defendant’s consciousness of guilt).

Conclusion

After considering the credible evidence summarized above, including the

corroborated admissions Defendant made to Chad Rogers and Sean Ward, the Court
finds beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1. On the evening of April 16, 2000, in their shared residence in Tama, Tama
County, Iowa, Defendant grabbed, choked, and then slammed Cora Okonski’s head into
the floor;

2. Cora Okonski died as a result of being grabbed, choked, and slammed

into the floor by Defendant; and

3. Defendant killed Cora Okonski with malice aforethought.

The Court finds insufficient evidence for it to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
Defendant acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and with a specific intent in killing
Cora Okonski. The best evidence presented to support this element was the testimony
of Ricky Jo Sanchez that Ms. Okonski expressed a fear on April 16, 2000, that
Defendant was going to kill her. Although this was credible evidence as to
Ms. Okonski’s state of mind, it is not enough, when coupled with other credible evidence
in this case, to overcome the high burden of proof.

Thus, the evidence presented at trial establishes beyond a reasonable doubt

Defendant committed the offense of Murder in the Second Degree on April 16, 2000, in
killing Cora Okonski.

VERDICT

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby finds Defendant GUILTY of the
offense of Murder in the Second Degree, a lesser and included (Class B felony)
offense of the charge in the Indictment, in violation of Iowa Code Section 707.3.

Sentencing is set February 1, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. One hour has been set aside
for the sentencing hearing. If either side believes more time is needed, they will contact
the other party and Court Administration to reschedule the hearing.

12
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

A presentence investigation report (original and two copies) shall be completed

by the Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services. At least five days
prior to the date set for sentencing, the Department shall serve the presentence
investigation report upon Defendant's attorneys and the attorneys for the State, and the
report shall remain confidential except upon Court order. Defense counsel shall review
the completed report with Defendant and be prepared to make any additions,
corrections, or changes to the report they feel are necessary.

The State shall promptly prepare a statement of pecuniary damages to the

victim. The Clerk of Court shall promptly prepare a statement of court-appointed
attorney fees or expenses of a public defender, if any, and court costs. Both statements
shall be promptly provided to the presentence investigator.

At the time of sentencing, restitution will be ordered in the amount set out in the
statement of pecuniary damages filed unless Defendant gives notice of any objections
thereto in writing prior to sentencing.

Defendant is advised that he has the right to file a motion for a new trial pursuant
to Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24(2) and a motion for arrest of judgment pursuant
to Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24(3). Defendant has 45 days from today to file
these motions.

Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 811.1(1), Defendant’s offense of conviction is not

bailable. Therefore, Defendant shall remain in custody pending sentencing.

Dated: December 8, 2017.

13
 E-FILED 2017 DEC 08 3:19 PM TAMA - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

State of Iowa Courts

Type: OTHER ORDER

Case Number Case Title

FECR015274 STATE OF IOWA V. TAIT OTIS PURK

So Ordered

Electronically signed on 2017-12-08 15:19:06 page 14 of 14