Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

David Thompson was convicted of fourth-degree domestic assault and violating an order of protection. He appealed, arguing that the circuit court made three errors: (1) denying his motion to dismiss due to lack of counsel at his preliminary hearing, (2) rejecting his proposed lesser-included offense instruction for fourth-degree domestic assault, and (3) submitting a corrective instruction after the jury announced its verdicts.Thompson was charged with felony domestic assault for hitting his ex-boyfriend with a vehicle, violating a protective order. At his preliminary hearing, Thompson was unrepresented, and the associate circuit division found probable cause to proceed to trial. Thompson later moved to dismiss, claiming his right to counsel was violated, but the circuit court denied the motion. At trial, the jury was instructed on third-degree domestic assault and a lesser-included offense of fourth-degree domestic assault. The jury found Thompson not guilty of third-degree domestic assault but guilty of the lesser charge and violating the protective order. After the verdicts, the court discovered inconsistent verdicts for Count I and issued a corrective instruction, leading the jury to clarify its guilty verdict for fourth-degree domestic assault.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case. It held that Thompson's right to counsel was not violated because he had ample opportunity to retain counsel but failed to do so. The court also found no error in the circuit court's rejection of Thompson's proposed instruction, as the given instruction was appropriate and there was no rational basis for the jury to acquit him of the charged offense while convicting him of the lesser-included offense. Lastly, the court ruled that the corrective instruction was proper and did not prejudice Thompson, as the jury had not been discharged and the court acted within its authority to resolve the inconsistency.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

In July 1991, Christopher Dunn was convicted of first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, and three counts of armed criminal action. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder, 30 years for each assault, and 10 years for each armed criminal action, all to be served consecutively. In February 2024, the St. Louis circuit attorney filed a motion to vacate Dunn’s convictions, citing new evidence of actual innocence. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing and found clear and convincing evidence of Dunn’s innocence, vacating his convictions and ordering his release. The attorney general opposed this and filed a notice of appeal.The circuit court ordered Dunn’s release, but the attorney general sought a writ of prohibition or mandamus from the Supreme Court of Missouri to prevent the release. The Supreme Court issued a temporary stay and later a permanent writ prohibiting Dunn’s release without the state’s intent to retry him. The circuit court amended its judgment, and Dunn was released after the circuit attorney filed a memorandum of nolle prosequi. The attorney general appealed, but the circuit attorney moved to dismiss, arguing the state had no right to appeal under section 547.031.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed whether the state could appeal the judgment vacating Dunn’s convictions. The court held that the state is an aggrieved party with a statutory right to appeal under section 512.020(5). The court found that section 547.031 did not limit the state’s right to appeal and that the state’s interest in the finality of its convictions made it an aggrieved party. The court retransferred the case to the court of appeals to overrule the circuit attorney’s motion to dismiss and proceed with the state’s appeal on the merits. View "In re: Circuit Attorney, 22nd Judicial Circuit ex rel. Dunn" on Justia Law

Anthony Tate was convicted of first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon, unlawful possession of a weapon, and four counts of armed criminal action. The charges stemmed from an incident where Tate fired 15 shots into a vehicle, killing one passenger and injuring two others. The injured passengers, A.H. and M.E., sustained gunshot wounds that required medical treatment and resulted in protracted impairment. Tate was identified through video surveillance and social media posts, and the gun used in the shooting was found in his possession.The Circuit Court of St. Louis County found Tate guilty on all counts. Tate appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the first-degree assault convictions, the failure of the circuit court to issue a corrective instruction regarding the State’s closing argument, and the admission of hearsay testimony from a detective. The Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed the case and upheld the circuit court’s judgment.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the first-degree assault convictions, as the injuries sustained by A.H. and M.E. constituted serious physical injury with protracted impairment. The court also found no plain error in the circuit court’s failure to issue a corrective instruction regarding the State’s closing argument or in admitting the detective’s testimony. The court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find Tate guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Tate" on Justia Law

In March 2022, Brian Milazzo was stopped at a driver’s license checkpoint in Randolph County, Missouri. Milazzo, who was driving a pickup truck with a passenger, did not have his driver’s license but had proof of insurance on his phone. After being asked to pull over, the officers noticed the passenger was not wearing a seatbelt and refused to identify himself. The officers decided to arrest the passenger for failing to wear a seatbelt. When the passenger refused to exit the vehicle, the officers instructed Milazzo to unlock the passenger-side door multiple times. Milazzo did not comply, leading the officers to break the window to arrest the passenger. Milazzo was subsequently arrested and charged with interfering with an arrest.The Circuit Court of Randolph County overruled Milazzo’s motions for judgment of acquittal, and the jury found him guilty of interfering with an arrest. Milazzo was sentenced to 21 days in jail. He appealed the conviction, arguing insufficient evidence to support the charge, specifically that failing to unlock the door did not constitute physical interference.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court interpreted the statute on interfering with an arrest to include not only affirmative acts but also omissions that hamper law enforcement. The court found that Milazzo’s refusal to unlock the door constituted physical interference as it created a material barrier to the officers’ ability to arrest the passenger. The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment and sentence against Milazzo. View "State v. Milazzo" on Justia Law

Brian K. Heathcock was found guilty of first-degree tampering, felony resisting arrest, and tampering with a victim. In September 2018, Heathcock threw his girlfriend's cell phone out of a moving car, then drove off with her car when she exited to retrieve it. The girlfriend reported the car stolen. Heathcock was later spotted by a deputy sheriff in Warren County, leading to a high-speed chase. He was eventually found near a Walmart, where he admitted to taking the car and stealing CDs.Heathcock pleaded guilty to first-degree tampering in Montgomery County in October 2019. In November 2020, he was charged in Warren County with another count of first-degree tampering for the same vehicle incident. Heathcock moved to dismiss this count on double jeopardy grounds, but the circuit court overruled the motion. He was also charged with felony resisting arrest and tampering with a victim. A jury found him guilty on all counts, and the circuit court sentenced him to five years in prison for each count, with some sentences to be served concurrently and others consecutively. Heathcock renewed his double jeopardy objection in his motion for a new trial.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court held that Heathcock's convictions were based on two distinct acts of tampering, as he operated the vehicle unlawfully on separate occasions. The court found that each act of operation constituted a discrete crime, and thus, did not violate double jeopardy protections. The court concluded that Heathcock's actions in Montgomery and Warren Counties were separate offenses, justifying multiple convictions. View "State v. Heathcock" on Justia Law

F.S. was found guilty by a jury of statutory sodomy of an 11-year-old victim and sentenced to five years in prison. After completing her sentence and parole, she was subjected to lifetime electronic monitoring by the Missouri Department of Corrections under section 217.735. This monitoring involves wearing an ankle bracelet that tracks her location via GPS. F.S. challenged the constitutionality of this lifetime monitoring requirement, arguing it violated her Fourth Amendment rights.The Circuit Court of Cole County upheld the constitutionality of section 217.735. During the bench trial, the court received stipulated facts, exhibits, and testimony from experts. The court found that GPS monitoring can deter recidivism among sex offenders by enforcing exclusion zones and increasing the certainty of legal repercussions. The court also noted that F.S. had not reoffended since completing parole but found that sex offenders with child victims tend to reoffend over a longer period. The court concluded that the GPS monitoring was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, given F.S.'s diminished expectation of privacy as a convicted sex offender and the state's legitimate interest in protecting potential victims.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court held that F.S. failed to present particularized evidence showing that section 217.735 was unconstitutionally applied to her circumstances. The court emphasized that F.S.'s status as a female offender and her lack of reoffending did not suffice to demonstrate that the statute was unreasonable as applied to her. The court concluded that the statute did not clearly contravene any specific constitutional provision and upheld the lifetime monitoring requirement. View "F.S. v. Missouri Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole" on Justia Law

A nurse at a Missouri Department of Mental Health facility assaulted Vernell Beach, a non-verbal, developmentally disabled patient. The nurse was charged with second-degree assault and armed criminal action. Beach's legal guardian sued the nurse, who did not respond to the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment. The nurse later pleaded guilty to third-degree assault, and the attorney general withdrew from representing her. A second default judgment awarded Beach $8 million plus interest. When the state refused to pay from the State Legal Expense Fund, Beach sought a writ of mandamus in the Cole County circuit court.The Cole County circuit court granted a permanent writ of mandamus directing the state to release the funds to satisfy the judgment. However, the court did so without first issuing a preliminary order in mandamus, which is required to initiate responsive pleadings and allow the state to contest the facts and raise defenses.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and found that the circuit court's failure to issue a preliminary order in mandamus materially affected the merits of the action. The preliminary order is essential for initiating responsive pleadings and ensuring a fair process. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Beach v. Zellers" on Justia Law

In the early morning, a police officer stopped Chad Thomas for driving with a broken headlight. During the stop, Thomas exhibited unusual behavior, such as rolling down the rear window instead of the front, being unable to find his driver’s license, and acting nervously. The officer conducted a pat-down search, during which Thomas mentioned he might have a "sharp," a term the officer associated with drug use. Thomas's behavior, including blocking the officer's view and lying about having his license, led the officer to call for a canine unit, which eventually alerted to the presence of drugs.The Circuit Court of Saline County overruled Thomas's motion to suppress the evidence found during the search, concluding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on Thomas's behavior. The court found that the extension of the stop was justified by Thomas's actions and the need to verify his identity and the outstanding warrant. The court admitted the evidence, and the jury found Thomas guilty of possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Thomas was sentenced to 10 years in prison.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop based on the totality of Thomas's behavior, which included nervousness, evasive actions, and inconsistent statements. The court found that the detention and subsequent search were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, as the officer's actions were justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. View "State vs. Thomas" on Justia Law

Richard Emery was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for each count. Emery admitted to killing his girlfriend K.K., her mother J.M., and K.K.'s two children, Z.K. and J.K., but argued he did not deliberate before the murders. The jury rejected this argument, finding overwhelming evidence of deliberation. Emery appealed, claiming errors in jury selection, evidence admission, the prosecutor's closing argument, and alleged religious bias by the judge.The Circuit Court of St. Charles County struck a potential juror for cause, admitted body-camera footage and testimony about Emery's shootout with police and attempted carjacking, and allowed victim impact testimony from the officers and a carjacking victim during the penalty phase. Emery's objections to these decisions were overruled. The court found the evidence of deliberation compelling, noting Emery's methodical actions before and after the murders, including his calm demeanor and attempts to escape.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed Emery's claims and found no abuse of discretion or plain error. The court held that the body-camera footage and testimony about the shootout and carjacking were relevant to proving deliberation and providing a complete picture of the events. The court also found that the victim impact testimony was permissible under Missouri law. The prosecutor's closing argument did not constitute improper personalization, and the judge's comments about Emery's lack of spirituality were not indicative of religious bias.The court conducted an independent proportionality review and concluded that the death sentences were not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. The evidence supported the jury's finding of statutory aggravating circumstances, and the sentences were not excessive or disproportionate compared to similar cases. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. View "State v. Emery" on Justia Law

In 1998, the defendant fatally stabbed the victim during a burglary. The victim's belongings were found in the defendant's vehicle, and two witnesses testified that the defendant confessed to the crime. In 2001, a jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder and other charges, sentencing him to death. Over the next 23 years, the defendant's claims of actual innocence and constitutional errors were repeatedly rejected by state and federal courts.The defendant's direct appeal was denied by the Missouri Supreme Court in 2003, and his post-conviction relief appeal was denied in 2005. The federal district court initially granted habeas relief, but the Eighth Circuit reversed this decision in 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2013. Subsequent habeas petitions and requests for DNA testing were also denied by the Missouri Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court found no clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence or constitutional error that would undermine confidence in the original judgment. The court noted that recent DNA testing did not support the defendant's claim of innocence and that the evidence showed the killer wore gloves, which aligned with the trial testimony. The court also rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Batson violations, as these issues had been previously adjudicated and found to be without merit.The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, denying the motion to vacate or set aside the conviction and sentence. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate actual innocence or constitutional error by clear and convincing evidence. The motion for a stay of execution was overruled as moot. View "Prosecuting Attorney, 21st Judicial Circuit, ex rel. Williams v. State of Missouri" on Justia Law