Cedar Rapids man who fatally beat, stabbed his friend sentenced to life

CEDAR RAPIDS — A Cedar Rapids man who fatally assaulted and stabbed a 64-year-old man in 2007 was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Curtis Padgett, now 43, was convicted in May of first-degree murder for killing his friend and neighbor, Dennis First, on May 11, 2007, in his Hawthorne Hills apartment in southwest Cedar Rapids. Padgett then was 26.

  Buy Photo

According to trial testimony, two stabbing injuries penetrated the victim’s neck muscle and jugular vein, which caused his death.

First also had multiple blunt force injuries to his face and head, which contributed to his death, testified Dr. Jonathan Thompson, a deputy medical examiner. The injuries caused hemorrhaging of First’s his brain and bruising and bleeding underneath his scalp.

He also suffered broken ribs — which could be caused by someone stomping on him, Thomson said.

Padgett, who opted for a bench — or non-jury — trial, was found guilty by 6th Judicial District Judge Ian Thornhill. The judge also sentenced him Tuesday to the mandatory life sentence.

Padgett also must pay $150,000 in victim restitution to First’s heir — his daughter — who attended some of his trial and was at the sentencing Tuesday. She declined to give a victim impact statement during the hearing.

Thornhill, in his 12-page written verdict, pointed to “extremely compelling” scientific evidence that included Padgett’s fingerprint on a knife sharpener found with the murder weapon — a paring knife with a 3- to 4- inch blade — and Padgett’s boot print found in a wet blood droplet on the victim’s floor.

  Buy Photo

Thornhill also wrote he considered circumstantial evidence showing Padgett cried on the anniversary of First’s death and had demonstrated to his ex-girlfriend how First was killed.

First’s murder remained unsolved until March 2023 when Padgett initially was arrested for threatening to burn down Geneva Tower, where he lived at the time. He was then charged in this case, but testimony during his trial didn’t explain why it was finally solved.

On Tuesday, Assistant Linn County Attorney Molly Edwards provided more information why Padgett was finally arrested 17 years later and why some additional evidence wasn’t presented at trial.

She decided to do so in response to Padgett’s lengthy statement during sentencing, in which he maintained his innocence and provided his own explanations for how his DNA was found on blood-soaked oven mitts and the knife sharpener, and for why his boot print was found in blood.

Padgett said he “never did anything to harm’ First. The neighbor was a “good guy, his best friend” who gave Padgett rent money. They would hang out with another friend and play cards and watch television together, he said.

Padgett said he became First’s “de facto chef” and would cook for him. Padgett used the victim’s knives and knife sharpener regularly and those oven mitts “half a dozen” times, so it’s not surprising his DNA would be on them, he said.

He said the boot print in blood wasn’t from him but likely was from someone else in the apartment building. He said he bragged about the boots, which he bought with money First gave him, to several neighbors. Padgett said he told them the brand name, his size and where he got them — so anyone could have set him up, he said.

Padgett also disputed there was any new evidence in the case. Three witnesses mentioned by a prosecutor — who died after the crime — would have been able to testify about his and First’s relationship and how much he was in First’s apartment, he said.

Padgett called the prosecution “clueless” and accused police of charging him “just to close a cold case.” He also criticized his lawyers for not presenting evidence that he was pointing out.

Edwards told The Gazette that Padgett’s claims that the three witnesses, who died between May 10, 2007, and before the trial began in April, would have exonerated him “could not be further from the truth.”

“Three key witnesses have died, but had they been alive to testify, they would have supplied more evidence of the defendant’s guilt,” Edwards said.

Padgett also denied being in First’s apartment the night of May 10 into the morning of May 11, 2007, when First was killed, Edwards said. His claim is contradicted by two “independent” witnesses who each saw Padgett in First’s apartment that night — one about 10:35 p.m. and the other one around midnight. Both these witnesses died before trial, she said.

Edwards said she also couldn’t present evidence at trial of Padgett’s confession to a witness. In 2016, Padgett was homeless and living in the woods behind a “would-be” witness’ property. Padgett “became friendly” with the witness and the two occasionally would have a beer together.

On one such occasion, Padgett asked the witness if he would think differently of Padgett if Padgett told him he killed a man nine years ago, Edwards said. Padgett didn’t identify the victim by name, but instead told the witness the victim was his “best friend that he used to roll cigarettes for.”

“The defendant told police in 2007 and maintains to this day that the last time he saw Dennis alive was on May 9, 2007, when Dennis knocked on the defendant’s apartment door and asked the defendant to roll cigarettes for him.”

Edwards said this witness didn’t know First and was unfamiliar with the investigation into his death. This witness also didn’t know Padgett before 2016.

“It was not public knowledge that Padgett rolled cigarettes for Dennis First,” Edwards said. “The witness was completely independent and unbiased. The only way the witness could have known such specific information is for the defendant to have told the witness himself.”

This confession couldn’t be used at trial because the witness died three months before the trial started, she said. The prosecution chose to go to trial on the murder charge, even without the witnesses, because of the “strong scientific evidence that pointed to one man, and one man only, as Dennis First’s killer,” Edwards said.

“The evidence admitted at trial as well as the evidence the state was unable to present firmly establish the defendant’s guilt,” she said.

Comments: (319) 398-8318; trish.mehaffey@thegazette.com