Hollerman staged crash murder case

Hollerman staged crash murder case ---
tags: spouse victim, Staged Crimes Accidents, hit parked car, Minnesota, TV show, deliberate accident, cover story

1 killed 1 arrested crash, murder, affair March 22, 2002 Hollerman staged crash murder case  Princeton Minnesota man Steven Charles Hollermann was convicted of second degree murder of his wife March 22, 2002 in Isanti County and then staging a traffic crash to cover up the evidence. Sentenced to 210 months. His appeal was denied and is serving his sentence at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater with an anticipated release in 2014. Steve Hollerman told authorities that before the accident, he had pushed his wife, Deborah, into the door of a vehicle during an argument and did not call for help. Police believe there was a fight in which his wife was killed and the decided to staged a collision between his vehicle and a parked car on the side of the road in an attempt to explain her injuries. Investigation by Isanti County Investigator Chris Janssen and State Trooper Tony Snyder revealed that that woman had been injured before the crash, and it wasn't the crash that killed her. Officer Snyder was suspicious because "one person was dead, one person was uninjured , an anonymous phone call stated the husband of the woman is having an affair. The case was featured on the cable network program Forensic Files, and is a textbook case of a deliberate crash to cover up evidence of another crime.

*Reference

* Forensic Files - Tight-Fitting Genes Transs - Thursday, Apr 29, 2010 ...

*Sources

Trial begins in Hollerman murder case - ECM Publishers
archives.ecmpublishers.info/static/PUE/2003/april/10trial.htmlTrial begins in Hollerman murder ... degree intentional murder of his wife, DeborahHollerman, ... an auto accident there. Steve Hollermann had been driving a ...

Princeton man charged with 2nd degreemurder in suspicious ... rchives.ecmpublishers.info/static/PUE/2002/april/22murder.html murder in suspicious car accident death of wife. ... Steve Hollerman, ... Hollerman then allegedly admitted he and his wife got into an argument at a store in ...

Princeton Man Charged in Wife's Death after Car Accident ... kare11.com Princeton Man Charged in Wife's Death after Car Accident 2:06 ... What initially appeared to be a traffic fatality is now a murder case ... Hollerman has been ...

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Stephen Charles ...
law.justia.com › ... › Minnesota Court of Appeals Decisions › 2004




JustiaDec 7, 2004 - At trial, a state patrol accident reconstructionist, Sergeant Paul Skoglund, testified that based on his examination of the collision Hollermann's ...Appellant Stephen Charles Hollermann was charged with seconddegree intentional murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2000).  He challenges his conviction of second-degree felony murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1) (2000).  He argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction, second-degree felony murder is not a lesser-included offense of second-degree intentional murder, and the upward departure was improper.  We affirm. 

FACTS

On March 22, 2002, Hollermann's wife died from "blunt force head trauma."  Authorities originally believed the injuries were solely the result of an automobile accident.  Hollermann's Jeep Cherokee struck a Hyundai Excel that had been left on the shoulder of Highway 95 near Princeton, Minnesota.  The right front corner of Hollermann's Jeep struck the left rear corner of the Hyundai, causing the Jeep to spin out of control and come to rest in the ditch.  Hollermann's wife died at the scene of the accident.  Hollermann complained of neck and back pain and was taken to the nearby hospital where it was later determined that he suffered no injuries.

State Trooper Anthony Snyder was dispatched to the collision and was the lead investigator at the scene.  Snyder was suspicious because "one person was dead, one person was uninjured . . . [there was] very little damage to the vehicle and there was a lot of blood."  Snyder's suspicions were later enhanced when he learned of an anonymous phone call to an officer of the Princeton Police Department that stated, "I think it's important that you know the husband of the woman who died in the car accident on Highway 95 is having an affair and his staff at work had confronted him about it approximately a week ago." 

Snyder eventually relayed his suspicions to Special Agent Jon Hermann, a homicide investigator with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.  The two officers interviewed Hollermann at the Princeton Police Department.  The officers pointed out that there was far too much blood in the Jeep to have come just from the accident and asked Hollermann if he and his wife had an argument the night of the collision.  Hollermann denied there was any argument.  After the officers pointed to numerous reasons why the amount and location of the blood in his Jeep could not have come from the accident, Hollermann admitted the couple got into an argument inside the car and he pushed her head against the Jeep's pillar "a couple [times], two or three maybe."  He also admitted that his wife was bleeding pretty heavily at that point.  Hollermann stated to the officers, "I noticed she was bleeding I knew I screwed up and had to take her to the hospital."  Hollermann was charged with one count of second-degree intentional murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2000).

At trial, a state patrol accident reconstructionist, Sergeant Paul Skoglund, testified that based on his examination of the collision Hollermann's minimum speed was between 39 and 42 miles per hour.  Skoglund testified that the damage sustained by both vehicles was, in his experience, consistent with Hollermann's Jeep traveling 42 miles per hour.  A second state patrol reconstructionist, Sergeant Donald Schmalzbauer, also testified that the damage was consistent with the estimated speed of 42 miles per hour. 

            Skoglund also testified that, based on the 42 mph speed and the distance between where the Hyundai was parked and where a tire mark indicated Hollermann's Jeep crossed the "fog line," he concluded Hollermann had between 2.1 and 2.2 seconds to react before he hit the Hyundai.  Skoglund testified the average person's reaction time is 0.75 seconds.  Skoglund testified there were no signs of braking or avoidance steering, but based on the way the steering wheel was bent, Skoglund believed Hollermann braced for impact. 

            Doctor Janice Ophoven, a forensic pathologist, also testified at trial.  She testified that Hollermann's wife had suffered multiple lacerations to the forehead and scalp area, a fractured nose, other facial abrasions, a bruised elbow, and most significantly multiple skull fractures and bruising of the brain.  Dr. Ophoven testified that Hollermann's wife suffered two types of skull fracturesa "depressed" fracture and a "basilar" fracture.  Dr. Ophoven testified that either fracture would be sufficient to cause death, but it would be possible for someone to survive a depressed fracture and even walk around in such a condition, while a basilar fracture is almost certainly lethal.

Dr. Ophoven's supervisor, Dr. Janis Amatuzio, was also consulted after Hollermann admitted to assaulting his wife.  With the knowledge of the assault, Dr. Amatuzio attempted to reconstruct the events of the night based on Hollermann's wife's injuries and the interior of Hollermann's Jeep.  Dr. Amatuzio testified that the adjustment knob for the passenger-side mirror was the only object that could have caused the four lacerations to the right side of Hollermann's wife's head and the underlying depressed skull fracture.  Based on the blood pattern on the windshield, Dr. Amatuzio believed that in the automobile collision Hollermann's wife's elbow likely struck the windshield while her forehead struck the rearview mirror.  Dr. Amatuzio testified that the basilar fracture was certainly lethal and that it could have happened either during the assault or during the collision.  Although Dr. Amatuzio was unable to determine to a medical certainty whether it was the assault that caused Hollermann's wife to die, she recommended that the death certificate list the immediate cause of death as blunt force trauma to the head, that the underlying reason was an assault with the collision as a contributing factor, and that the death was the result of a homicide.  The case was tried to the court alone.

After both sides rested, Hollermann requested the opportunity to discuss lesser-included offenses and an off-the-record discussion followed.  In letters submitted to the district court, the state requested the court to consider second-degree felony murder; Hollermann objected.  The district court found Hollermann guilty of second-degree felony murder.  The court reasoned that second-degree felony murder was a lesser-included offense of second-degree intentional murder, and that while Hollermann did not intend to kill his wife, he was guilty of second-degree felony murder. 

The presumptive sentence for Hollermann's offense was 150 months in prison.  But the district court departed from the presumptive sentence, sentencing him to 210 months in prison based on Hollermann's wife's vulnerability and the particular cruelty by which the crime was committed.

D E C I S I O N

            1.            Hollermann argues the circumstantial evidence in this case is insufficient to support the verdict.  In considering a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the reviewing court will "take the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and assume that the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence."  State v. Pippitt, 645 N.W.2d 87, 92 (Minn. 2002); see also Davis v. State, 595 N.W.2d 520, 525 (Minn. 1999) (stating appellate courts review criminal bench trials same as jury trials when determining whether evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions).  Appellate review is "limited to ascertaining whether a jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty based on the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences therefrom."  State v. Harris, 589 N.W.2d 782, 791 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted). 

A conviction based on circumstantial evidence may stand where the evidence viewed as a whole so directly leads to the accused's guilt that it excludes any other reasonable inference.  State v. Bias, 419 N.W. 2d 480, 484 (Minn. 1988).  This standard "still recognizes a jury is in the best position to evaluate the circumstantial evidence . . . [and] determine[] the credibility and weight given to the testimony of individual witness."  Id. (quotation omitted).

Hollermann was convicted of second-degree murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1) (2000), which provides a person is guilty of felony murder if the person "causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting." 

A person is guilty of felony murder if

the fatal wound was inflicted during the same chain of events in which the underlying felony took place so that the requisite time, distance, and causal relationship between the felony and killing are established.  So long as the underlying felony and the killing are part of one continuous transaction, it is irrelevant whether the felony took place before, after, or during the killing.  

State v. McBride, 666 N.W.2d 351, 365-66 (Minn. 2003) (quotations and citation omitted).

At trial, Dr. Amatuzio testified that the deceased's depressed skull fracture was almost certainly the result of Hollermann repeatedly slamming her head into an adjustment knob on the Jeep's passenger door and that the basilar fracture could have been caused during the assault or during the collision.  Both Dr. Amatuzio and Dr. Ophoven testified that the depressed skull fracture would probably have been lethal on its own and that a second brain injury would increase the likelihood of death, but neither one was able to say to a medical certainty whether the assault or the collision was ultimately the cause of death. 

The district court explicitly found "the collision was not an accident."  In making this finding the court relied on the accident reconstructionist's testimony that Hollermann had time to react, made no attempt to swerve or brake, but braced himself for impact and the fact that Hollermann had "adjusted his seat as far back as he could while still being able to reach the controls of the vehicle, so that he could reduce his chance of injury."  Snyder testified that the driver's seat was moved back to the second to the last notch when he arrived at the accident scene.  In transcripts of Hollermann's statements to the police, he states he does not drive with the seat that far back. 

The evidence supports the district court's finding that Hollermann intentionally hit the Hyundai, intending to cover up his earlier assault.  The collision was part of the same chain of events as the assault and therefore, whether Hollermann's wife died from the injuries suffered from the assault or from the injuries suffered in the collision, the evidence is sufficient to prove Hollermann guilty of second-degree felony murder.  See McBride, 666 N.W.2d 365-66.  

2.                        Hollermann argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it added second-degree felony murder as a lesser-included offense over his objection.  "[I]n a murder case it is preeminently the trial court's duty in the exercise of its discretion to determine what lesser degrees of homicide to submit. . . . Neither the prosecution nor the defense can limit the submission of such lesser degrees as the trial court determines should be submitted."  State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 421-22, 228 N.W.2d 120, 125 (1975).  When the evidence would reasonably support a conviction of the lesser degree while at the same time support a finding of not guilty of the greater offense, "it is the duty of the trial court to submit such lesser degrees as it determines the evidence warrants."  Id. at 422, 228 N.W.2d at 126 (emphasis added).

This court has explicitly held that felony murder is a lesser-included offense of second-degree intentional murder.  State v. Lory, 559 N.W.2d 425, 428-29 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. April 15, 1997).  At oral argument, Hollermann conceded that Lory applies but argued that it was wrongly decided because this court did not reach its decision by comparing the elements of second-degree intentional murder and second-degree felony murder.  He argues that second-degree felony murder requires the state to prove that the defendant committed a felony with force and violence, while second-degree intentional murder does not.   

Hollermann's argument, however, is based on a flawed reading of Minn. Stat. § 609.19.  Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd.2(1) provides a person is guilty of second-degree felony murder if that person "causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting."  Subdivision 2(1) was added to Minn. Stat. § 609.19 in 1981.  1981 Minn. Laws ch. 227 § 10.  At that time, Minn. Stat. § 609.185(2) already provided that a person is guilty of first-degree murder if that person "causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence."  See 1975 Minn. Laws ch. 374 § 1 (replacing phrase "rape or sodomy with force of violence" with current language).  It is clear that the legislature intended that the phrase "with force or violence" to describe the type of criminal sexual conduct that is not a predicate felony for second-degree felony murder because causing a death during such crimes is first-degree murder.  See Minn. Stat. § 645.16(2) (stating intention of legislature controls statutory interpretation and may be ascertained by considering "circumstances under which it was enacted"); see also State v. Cole, 542 N.W.2d 43, 52 (Minn. 1996) (reiterating that since 1981 amendment any felony, including property offense, can be predicate felony so long as felony "involves a special danger to human life").

Hollermann's argument also fails because it is based on an overly simplistic comparison of the elements of the two categories of murder.  Second-degree intentional murder and second-degree felony murder require proof of the same elements except for the defendant's mental state.  Compare Minn. Stat. § 609.10, subd. 1 with Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1); see also 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 11.26, 11.30 (4th ed. 2000) (listing elements for each offense).  For intentional murder the state must prove that the defendant intended to cause the victim's death.  For second-degree felony murder the state must prove the defendant acted with malice by proving that the defendant caused the victim's death while he or she committed or was attempting to commit a felony that involved special danger to human life.  Cole, 542 N.W.2d at 51-52 (stating "one whose conduct brought about an unintended death in the commission of a felony [can] be found guilty of murder by imputing malice when there is no specific intent to kill").  Because proof of intent to kill necessarily proves malice, felony murder is a lesser-included offense of intentional murder.  See Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2000) (providing "offense necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved" is lesser-included offense). 

Lory was correctly decided.  The district court properly determined that second-degree felony murder was a lesser-included offense of second-degree intentional murder.  Because we conclude the court did not err in considering second-degree felony murder, we do not address Hollermann's argument that he was prejudiced by the district court's decision to consider second-degree felony murder.  See State v. Gisege, 561 N.W.2d 152, 157-59 (Minn. 1997) (stating "jury can . . . find the defendant guilty of any lesser-included offense, whether or not the lesser-included offense was part of the complaint or indictment" but addition of lesser, but not included, offense was fundamental error that required reversal only if error denied defendant "a substantial right, namely, the opportunity to prepare a defense to the charge against him" (quotation omitted)). 

3.                        Hollermann also argues the trial court impermissibly imposed a 40% upward durational departure.[1]  Upward departure is within the discretion of the district court only if substantial and compelling aggravating circumstances are present.  State v. Best, 449 N.W.2d 426, 427 (Minn. 1989).  "When a district court departs [from the sentencing guidelines], it must articulate substantial and compelling reasons justifying the departure."  State v. Schmit, 601 N.W.2d 896, 898 (Minn. 1999).  If the record supports the district court's findings of substantial and compelling circumstances, a reviewing court will uphold the sentence unless it strongly feels that the sentence is disproportionate to the offense.  State v. Schroeder, 401 N.W.2d 671, 674 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Apr. 23, 1987).   

Here, the trial court stated during the sentencing hearing that it was basing the upward departure on Hollermann's wife's vulnerability and the "particular cruelty visited on the victim."  Both factors are listed as aggravating factors under Minnesota Sentencing Guideline II.D.2.b, and therefore if either finding is supported by the evidence the upward departure should be affirmed.  State v. Folkers, 581 N.W.2d 321, 327 (Minn. 1998) (concluding finding of particular cruelty alone is sufficient to support departure because it is enumerated as aggravating factor in sentencing guidelines).   

In basing its departure on Hollermann's wife's vulnerability, the district court stated that "the fact that she was disabled, that her arm was disabled . . . tends to make this outside the [typical second-degree felony murder]."  For vulnerability of a victim to be based on an injury, "the injury must be a substantial factor in accomplishing the crime and the perpetrator must know of the injury."  State v. Hanson, 405 N.W.2d 467, 469 (Minn. App. 1987).  Numerous witnesses testified that the deceased had undergone elbow surgery on her right arm two weeks before her death and that her arm was in a sling at the time of her death.  According to Hollerman's statements admitted in evidence, he repeatedly slammed his wife's head into an adjustment knob on the passenger door of his Jeep.  If her right arm had not been in a sling, she would have been able to defend herself and thereby prevented Hollermann from hitting her head against the passenger side door with sufficient force to fracture her skull. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in departing based on Hollermann's wife's vulnerability.  Because the victim's vulnerability is specifically listed as an aggravating factor in the sentencing guidelines, it is sufficient to support an upward departure.  Folkers, 581 N.W.2d at 327 (Minn. App. 1998).  Therefore, we do not address whether the district court's decision to depart is also correctly based on its conclusion that this offense was committed with particular cruelty. 

Affirmed. 

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

[1] Hollermann did not raise, argue, or brief the issue of whether his sentence was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) and we do not address the issue.  State v. Butcher, 563 N.W.2d 776, 780 (Minn. App. 1997) (stating issues not briefed on appeal are waived), review denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 1997).

Princeton man charged with 2nd degreemurder in ...
archives.ecmpublishers.info/static/PUE/2002/april/22murder.html



Apr 19, 2002 - murder in suspicious car accident death of wife. By Greg Hunt, Isanti County News. On first look, it appeared Deborah Hollerman had died in an March 22, ...further into the case, the cause of death was changed to homicide.



Hollermann sentence is 210 months Judge departs upward ... Referring to a staged car accident after Steve Hollermann beat his wife the night she... caring person "who makes you feel special," said that wasn't the case.


Isanti county news: Hollermann murder case featured on Forensic Files cable TV show Aug 24, 2005 - Hollermann murder case featured on Forensic Files cable program Aug. 31. By Evelyn Puffer. The case of a Princeton man convicted of ...


* Forensic Files - Tight-Fitting Genes - Thursday, Apr 29, 2010 ...

tv.ark.com/transcript/forensic_files-(tight-fitting...April.../277705/

Narrator: Snyder was bothered because this accident didn't seem bad enough to have caused a fatality as he had seen in so many other accidents.
00:00:10	>> I've been to accidents where people -- actually, their head had went clean through the windshield, and they're speaking to me when I get there, and this windshield wasn't broke out.
00:00:18	It was barely cracked.
00:00:20	>> Narrator: And snyder thought the amount of blood in the car was inconsistent with deborah's injuries.
00:00:27	>> There was a lot of blood in the vehicle -- more blood than I'd ever seen at any accident in my life, and I've been to hundreds of accidents.
00:00:36	>> Narrator: But so had local traffic investigators, and they disagreed with snyder.
00:00:41	They came to the same conclusion as the coroner -- that the car crash was an accident.
00:00:47	Tony snyder's options were dwindling until an anonymous telephone call shed new light on an already-mysterious case.
00:03:40	>> Narrator: Deborah hollerman's family was angry with policey learned some of the details surrounding the car crash that took her life.
00:03:48	>> How can there be a car on the side of the road for a couple of days?
00:03:53	I mean, isn't it somebody's responsibility to take a car off of a state highway?
00:03:57	>> Narrator: Highway patrolman tony snyder was less concerned about the abandoned car and more concerned with steve hollerman's driving skill.
00:04:07	He was convinced there was more to the story than steve was telling.
00:04:12	>> And I asked him if a deer jumped out, if he was playing with his radio knobs, if he was on the cellphone.
00:04:18	I'm asking him if he passed out, blacked out, was dizzy, fell asleep.
00:04:23	And none of those things were the reason he was off the roadway.
00:04:27	He just said he didn't know.
00:04:29	>> Narrator: Steve told investigators that he and deborah had been shopping and were heading home when the accident occurred, so snyder chked steve's story by reviewing the videos taken by the store's security cameras.
00:04:44	They show the hollermans at the store that night, but they left several hours earlier than steve claimed.
00:04:52	>> The last store he left was , and I got a call to come to the crash at , so there's quite a bit of time missing to drive 18 or 20 miles.
00:05:03	>> Narrator: In addition, the items the hollermans bought at the store weren't in the jeep at the time of the accident, so where were the hollermans ?
00:05:15	An anonymous telephone call gave tony snyder a clue.
00:05:19	>> There was no name, no way to get ahold of anybody -- but just so you know, somebody called and said, "steve hollerman's been having an " >> that piqued our interest even more to say, "jeez, there's some more pieces to this that we're unfamiliar with and that we want " >> Narrator: Surprisingly, deborah's friends all knew about the affair -- and apparently, so did deborah.
00:05:43	>> She was aware there was an affair going on, and she was going to confront him.
00:05:47	That was made clear.
00:05:49	Her girlfriends have told us that.
00:05:51	>> Narrator: Investigators eventually discovered the identity of steve's girlfriend.
00:05:56	She was employed by the local hospital where steve worked as a lab supervisor.
00:06:02	When questioned, she openly admitted the affair.
00:06:07	>> She basically said that they had been seeing each other for a year.
00:06:10	They were in love with each other.
00:06:12	They went on outings together, and she admitted that they had sex that day in his cabin.
00:06:19	>> Narrator: The cabin was the hollermans' summer home at green lake.
00:06:22	It was just a mile and a half from the crash site.
00:06:26	With a warrant, investigators searched the cabin and found evidence confirming the story they'd heard from steve's girlfriend.
00:06:35	>> You could see a bed where it looked like it had been recently slept in or used in some way.
00:06:40	>> Narrator: And they also discovered that steve and deborah had been in the cabin before the car crash.
00:06:47	Several items they had purchased that night were in the cabin, so snyder decided to take a closer look at the hollermans' jeep, as well as the accident scene.
00:07:00	Steve said he was driving 60 miles an hour when the accident occurred.
00:07:04	Accident-reconstruction experts have a way of confirming this.
00:07:09	If a parked car is hit, the distance it moves after impact can tell you the speed at which it was hit.
00:07:18	It's based on sir isaac newton's laws of physics, specifically conservation of momentum.
00:07:25	When one object strikes another, as in this demonstration, its momentum is transferred to the other.
00:07:32	All things being equal, the speed of the first ball is equal to that of the last.
00:07:39	The weight of the two cars plus the friction between the tires and the road surface factor into the analysis.
00:07:47	>> The coefficient of friction is basically just a measure of how slippery that surface is, so that's a very important piece.
00:07:55	The other thing is the angles that are involved with approach and departure from the impact area for vehicles that are involved in a collision like this.
00:08:06	>> Narrator: Skoglund used surveying equipment to measure the distance the parked car moved afteimpact, as well as the angles of impact.
00:08:15	A computer program performed the physics calculations, and the result -- steve's jeep was traveling between 38 and 42 miles per hour when it hit the parked car, not 60 miles per hour as he claimed.
00:08:33	These calculations also proved that steve had enough time to avoid hitting the parked car.
00:08:40	>> He had slightly over two seconds from the time that he left the pavement till the impact.
00:08:46	>> He admitted he saw the taillights of the vehicle.
00:08:50	Ted he didn't swerve.
00:08:51	He admitted he didn't brake, saying he didn't have time.
00:08:54	>> Narrator: It was obvious that the crash didn't happen the way steve claimed, but would evidence found inside the jeep prove it was murder?heck this out.
00:10:11
00:12:45	>> Narrator: Investigators now suspected that deborah hollerman had been murdered.
00:12:51	Her family couldn't believe her husband, steve, had anything to do with it.
00:12:56	>> It was disbelief, going, "my god, the poor guy lost his wife.
00:13:00	He's gone through a month of mourning, and now they do this to him?
00:13:06	>> Narrator: But patrolman tony snyder feared steve may have committed the perfect crime.
00:13:13	>> I literally didn't sleep that night -- several nights.
00:13:16	Easter dinner at my mom and dad's -- I hardly ate, and they thought I was mad at them or upset with the family or sick or something.
00:13:22	I was just so obsessed by this that I couldn't eat, and I was worried that I was running out ..
00:13:33	To get this figured out.
00:13:35	I was running into a lot of dead ends.
00:13:37	>> Narrator: Since the original autopsy ruled deborah's death as accidental, snyder asked janis amatuzio for a second opinion.
00:13:46	>> As I looked at those photographs of the vehicle, which I'd not seen before that -- and I looked at the injuries, I said, "you know, there's something we don't know here, and I think this case deserves more investigation.
00:13:59	There's way too much blood " >> Narrator: amatuzio wanted to examine the hollermans' jeep herself.
00:14:07	>> Because, let's face it -- steve hollerman's future was at stake here, and the truth about deborah hollerman's death was at stake.
00:14:17	The most important thing for everybody to remember is that what we were trying to get at was the truth.
00:14:22	>> Narrator: amatuzio was approximately the same size and weight as deborah, so she did something extraordinary.
00:14:31	She donned protective clothing and climbed into the blood-stained car.
00:14:37	>> It was a little creepy.
00:14:39	[ Laughs ] it was sobering.
00:14:42	I realized I was sitting on the last spot deborah hollerman had been sitting before she died.
00:14:49	>> Narrator: The first thing she noticed was the blood smear on the windshield had what looked like a fabric pattern.
00:14:57	In fact, it looked like the heavy-knit sweater that deborah had been wearing at the time that she died.
00:15:03	>> Narrator: This was a key finding, because it proved that deborah was bleeding before the crash occurred.
00:15:12	>> The only way that that much blood could have been deposited on the inside of the vehicle at the time of the crash was if deborah hollerman had been bloody before the crash.
00:15:24	In other words, she had been injured before the crash.
00:15:28	That is the only way that she could have gotten that much blto her hair, onto her face.
00:15:36	>> Narrator: And there was more evidence that deborah was bleeding before the crash.
00:15:42	>> On the passenger-side rear window, you could see where blood had came from the seat and was running down the window.
00:15:49	>> Narrator: The l-shaped pattern demonstrated once again the physics of momentum.
00:15:55	When blood drips down the window of a jeep traveling at 40 miles per hour and it stops abruptly, everything in the jeep, including the blood, continues to move forward.
00:16:07	Scientists believe that's what caused this l-shaped pattern.
00:16:14	The final three pieces of evidence were crucial to understanding events before and after the crash.
00:16:22	Deborah's blood was found on the lever used to adjust the driver's seat.
00:16:27	>> The driver's seat where steven hollerman was seated was pushed as far back as the seat could go.
00:16:33	>> Narrator: The steering wheel was bent and investigars found steve's bloody shoe print on the passenger-side window.
00:16:42	This indicated that steve moved his seat back after he was in contact with deborah's blood, then grabbed the steering wheel to brace himself for the crash.
00:16:55	The evidence also proved that steve hollerman tried to break the passenger window after the crash.
00:17:03	>> My opinion is he was trying to break the window out at the accident scene.
00:17:08	He needed glass, because there was a lot of blood and there was no glass anywhere.
00:17:14	>> Narrator: Lastly, amatuzio discovered what really caused deborah's death.
00:20:00	>> Narrator: Forensic experts found what they believed was the murder weapon used to kill deborah hollerman.
00:20:08	It was the knob used to adjust the passenger-side mirror.
00:20:13	>> That adjustment knob was caked with blood and long, brown hairs.
00:20:18	It was clear to me that that adjustment knob was the instrument that created the injury pattern of the four lacerations, or tears, on her scalp and, in all likelihood, caused the depressed skull fractures.
00:20:36	>> Narrator: This proved that steve killed deborah by hitting her head repeatedly against the knob.
00:20:43	>> It was a severe beating.
00:20:45	It was severe.
00:20:47	>> So when death is the result of an assault, we classify it as a homicide.
00:20:52	>> Narrator: Steve hollerman was arrested and charged with deborah's murder.
00:20:57	>> He acted surprised, dumbfounded that he was under arrest.
00:21:02	When I cuffed him and put him in my car, he was like, "tony" -- he wanted to talk to me.
00:21:06	" you know, "why's this, why's that?" -- like we were friends.
00:21:10	>> I drove down to a park and sat in my car and read the criminal complaint, word for word, and the visions of the pictures really showed themselves when you read what they had discovered.
00:21:33	>> Narrator: Steve hollerman's lover admitted spending the afternoon with steve at the couple's summer cabin.
00:21:41	Later that night, around , steve and his wife, deborah, went shopping together and took their purchases to the cabin.
00:21:49	Deborah may have found evidence that steve had been there earlier with his lover.
00:21:54	Regardless, the forensic evidence suggests an argument ensued, and it turned violent.
00:22:00	>> We're through!
00:22:02	>> Narrator: While in the jeep, steve repeatedly smashed deborah's head into the mirror knob and side window causing the brain injuries that killed her.
00:22:13	Then steve tried to devise a plan to cover up the crime.
00:22:20	While driving home, he saw the parked car along the side of the highway and decided to stage an accident.
00:22:27	He got the jeep into position, moved his seat back with his bloody hands, made sure his seat belt was fastened while deborah's wasn't, then braced himself for impact.
00:22:42	The jeep traveled 130 feet at 40 miles per hour directly into the back-left side of the parked car.
00:22:50	Deborah's arm and bloody sweater struck the windshield -- proof that she was bleeding before the crash.
00:22:58	After the crash, steve tried to break the side window to make the crash look worse, but a passing motorist stoed to help before steve could do it.
00:23:08	>> I'm convinced that he contrived a plan to try to cover it up.
00:23:12	Whether he had that already figured out before he assaulted her and killed her, I believe that he did come up with a plan to cover it up, to make it look e found out a lot of things pretty quickly, as far as the speed limit he was traveling at and the positioning of his seat and a lot of the things, you you know, I -- I guess after we found out about the beating and that stuff that happened that night, I guess nothing was really aprise after that, you know?
00:23:44	>> Narrator: At the trial, steve pleaded not guilty.
00:23:48	He admitted striking deborah during an argument but said he was driving her to the hospital for treatment when the accident the judge didn't buy it.
00:24:00	Steve hollerman was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
00:24:07	>> The most fascinating case that I've dealt with in my 15 years as an attorney.
00:24:13	>> If you look long enough, pretty soon the scene begins to speak to you.
00:24:17	It realljust depends on the amount of attention that you give it.
00:24:21	It's really meticulous attention to detail.
00:24:24	I've learned over the years that if we look hard, we will eventually get to the answers.
00:24:30	>> Narrator: Without a careful look at the evidence and the use of science to reconstruct the crash, deborah hollerman's death might have remained an accident, and her husband would have walked free.
00:24:44	>> Tony snyder is adopted as our family hero.
00:24:48	Highway patrolmen don't investigate murders.
00:24:51	They give out traffic tickets, and for him to do what he did -- I mean, he didn't have experience in investigating murders.
00:25:01	He went to his superiors and they gave him the opportunity to ..
00:25:10	Need to thank everybody that was involved in it to give our family peace.
00:25:15	>> Narrator: Tony snyder is back to his old job as a highway patrolman.
00:25:20	This case was his first brush with forensic evidence but might not be his last.
00:25:26	>> I am sure I will probably never see anything like it ..

car crash staged to cover  up murder

woman obviously injured before crash

steve devised plan to cover up

staged accident

deborah

pleaded not guilty

steve holloman