Case Summary for October 26, 2016

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for October 26, 2016

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

Attached to the following docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

9:30 a.m. Wednesday, October 26, 2016
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC94865
State of Missouri v. Christopher M. Sanders
Jackson County
Challenge to failure to give involuntary manslaughter instruction
Listen to the oral argument:

SC94865.mp3
Sanders was represented during arguments by Jeannette L. Wolpink of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

In December 2011, maintenance worker found the body of a dead woman under a stairwell in a Kansas City hotel. An autopsy showed the woman had died from strangulation and blunt force trauma to the head. A police investigation revealed the body to be that of Sherilyn Hill, who had gone with a group of people around Thanksgiving 2011 to a room in the hotel, where they did drugs. Witnesses said Hill pulled out a knife multiple times and told Christopher Sanders to give her some crack cocaine. Sanders kicked Hill in the head, and she fell to the floor, where he kicked her at least 10 more times. No one in the room called police or told hotel staff that Hill was hurt. Police ultimately arrested Sanders for Hill’s death. At trial, Sanders testified in his own defense. He testified he became apprehensive after Hill pulled a knife on him multiple times. He said the third time, Hill’s knife cut his throat, drawing blood. He grabbed her wrist and hit her in the head; and, still holding the knife, she began swinging at him. Sanders testified he kicked Hill until she fell, then he kicked away the knife, accidentally kicking her in the head. He testified that, although Hill lost consciousness, he did not know she was seriously injured. He put her on the top of the stairs outside the room, left the hotel, and returned later, telling hotel staff a girl had passed out. He testified that, when he was questioned by law enforcement, he lied to them about the events of the evening but did not know Hill had died until the end of the interrogation. The trial court gave the jury instructions for second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter; the trial court overruled Sanders’ motion to give the jury an instruction for involuntary manslaughter. The jury found Sanders guilty of second-degree murder, and, consistent with the jury’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced him to life in prison. Sanders appeals.

This appeal presents one primary question for the Court – whether the trial court should have given the jury an involuntary manslaughter instruction. Related issues involve whether involuntary manslaughter is a nested lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, whether the jury should have been permitted to determine whether Sanders acted recklessly, and whether the jury’s inability to do so prejudiced Sanders or violated his constitutional rights to present a defense, to due process and to a fair trial.

SC94865_Sanders_brief.pdf

SC94865_State_brief.pdf

SC94865_Sanders_reply_brief.pdf

SC95280
State of Missouri v. Nathan Wayne Jensen
Douglas and Pulaski counties
Challenges to failure to give involuntary manslaughter instruction and failure to declare mistrial
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95280.mp3
Jensen was represented during arguments by Amy M. Bartholow of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

The state charged Nathan Jensen and Chris Jorgensen with first-degree murder, armed criminal action and abandonment of a corpse in connection with Kenny Stout’s December 2011 death in Douglas County. Evidence showed that Stout died from multiple stab wounds and that he had been beaten severely. At a trial held in Pulaski County, evidence was presented that Stout was staying in Ava with his friend, Shon Gossett. Stout and Gossett became involved in a “texting war” with Jensen, who was with Jorgensen at the time. Stout, Jensen and Jorgensen later drove to the woods. Jensen and Jorgensen both testified that Jorgensen punched Stout, knocking him unconscious and causing a seizure; that they both struck Stout with baseball bats; and that, together, they dragged Stout to a nearby brush pile and left him there. Jorgensen testified that he punched Stout after intervening in a fight between Jensen and Stout and that he and Jensen both struck Stout repeatedly. Jensen, however, testified that Jorgensen punched Stout as soon as they got out of the vehicle, that Jorgensen struck Stout multiple times, and that Jensen only struck Stout once after Jorgensen threatened to kill Jensen. Jorgensen testified he and Jensen later returned to where they had left Stout, found him still alive, and both stabbed him until he died. Jensen ultimately told law enforcement officers that Jorgensen later tried to kill Jensen. Jensen directed officers to Stout’s body. The trial court gave the jury instructions for first-degree murder, second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter under an accomplice liability theory, as well as an instruction for the defense of duress. The trial court overruled Jensen’s motion to give the jury an instruction for involuntary manslaughter. The jury found Jensen guilty of second-degree murder, armed criminal action and abandonment of a corpse. The trial court sentenced Jensen to life in prison for the murder charge, a concurrent five-year prison sentence for the armed criminal action charge and a consecutive four-year prison term for the abandonment charge. Jensen appeals.

This appeal presents several questions for the Court. One is whether the trial court should have given the jury an instruction for involuntary manslaughter. Related issues involve whether involuntary manslaughter is a nested lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, whether the jury should have been permitted to determine whether Jensen acted under duress, and whether the jury’s inability to do so violated Jensen’s constitutional rights to present a defense and due process. Other questions involve whether the trial court should have declared a mistrial – as a result of certain testimony by Gossett, after it determined the jury heard a comment the prosecutor made during a discussion meant to be just between the trial court and counsel, or as a result of an emotional outburst by Stout’s mother in response to a graphic photograph the prosecutor presented on the first day of trial – and whether the trial court’s rulings as to each incident violated Jensen’s constitutional rights or prejudiced him. Related issues involve whether Gossett’s testimony or the prosecutor’s comment was legally relevant to Jensen’s guilt for the charged crime or could convince the jury Jensen was a person of bad character who was more likely to commit the crimes charged, whether the trial court’s instruction to the jury to disregard Gossett’s “last sentence” was effective, and whether the mother’s response prevented the jury from listening to further evidence and deciding the case objectively.

SC95280_Jensen_brief.pdf

SC95280_State_brief.pdf

SC95280_Jensen_reply_brief.pdf

SC95461
State of Missouri v. James Calvin Smith
Pettis County
Challenges to failure to give certain jury instructions and to jurisdiction over one crime alleged
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95461.mp3
Smith was represented during arguments by Amy M. Bartholow of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

The state charged James Smith with 11 crimes arising out of six incidents in Sedalia. The state alleged that, in April 2012, Smith broke into a lawn care business, damaged doors and took lawn care and computer equipment, and broke into a 40-foot camper a man kept on the lawn care business’ property, damaged a window and took a television and handgun The state alleged that, Smith broke into the local post office in August 2012 and “messed up” some things and broke into a tool and manufacturing business in September 2012, damaged property and took two laptops, one of which had a valuable programming key on its back. The state further alleged Smith twice broke into a shop whose owner works on recreational vehicles – once in December 2012 and again in March 2013 – and took computer equipment and a collectible toy.

At trial, Smith presented no evidence. The trial court overruled Smith’s requests to give the jury certain instructions for lesser-included offenses. The jury found Smith guilty of all 11 counts – one count each of first-degree burglary, resisting arrest and second-degree property damage and four counts each of second-degree burglary and felony stealing – and the trial court sentenced him to various terms in prison. Smith appeals.

This appeal presents several questions for the Court involving the impact of the trial court not giving the jury instructions for first-degree trespass and misdemeanor stealing. The state concedes the trial court should have given the jury the lesser-included offense instructions and that the jury should have been permitted to determine whether Smith entered the premises unlawfully but not for the purpose of stealing and whether the value of the stolen items was less than $500. Remaining questions involve whether the trial court’s failure to give these jury instructions violated Smith’s constitutional rights to due process and to present a defense and whether this Court should presume prejudice from the instructional error or should examine the record to determine whether Smith actually was prejudiced. A further question involves whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with the second-degree burglary charge that allegedly occurred at the post office. Related issues involve whether the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the post office in Sedalia so as to give the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over this charge.

SC95461_Smith_brief.pdf

SC95461_State_brief.pdf

SC95461_Smith_reply_brief.pdf

Note: The Court on October 27 ordered supplemental briefing in this case:

SC95461_supplemental_briefing_order.pdf

SC95461_Smith_supplemental_brief.pdf

SC95461_state_supplemental_brief.pdf

SC95461_Smith_supplemental_reply_brief.pdf

SC95430
State of Missouri v. Lonnie L. Brown
St. Louis County
Challenges to failure to give a jury instruction, failure to grant a mistrial and evidentiary ruling
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95430.mp3
Brown was represented during arguments by Amy M. Bartholow of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

The state charged Lonnie Brown with first-degree assault and armed criminal action for shooting at his former neighbor, Dylan Whitehead, in August 2012 in St. Louis County. The state alleged Brown came to the apartment where Whitehead was staying, knocked on the door and said he wanted to “holler at” Whitehead, then shot at Whitehead when Whitehead opened the door, though Whitehead was not hit by the bullet. Following trial, the jury found Brown guilty of first-degree assault and armed criminal action. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 15 years in prison. Brown appeals.

This appeal presents several questions for the Court. One involves the impact of the trial court not giving the jury an instruction for third-degree assault. The state concedes the trial court should have given this lesser-included offense instruction and that the jury should have been allowed to determine whether Brown recklessly shot at Whitehead without the intent to injure him. Remaining issues involve whether the trial court’s failure to give this instruction violated Brown’s constitutional rights to due process as well as whether this Court should presume prejudice from the instructional error or should examine the record to determine whether Brown actually was prejudiced. Another question is whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial after Whitehead’s brother repeatedly volunteered during his testimony that Brown had been in prison. Related questions involve whether this testimony improperly informed the jury that Brown had prior felonies and violated Brown’s constitutional rights to due process, to a fair trial and to be tried only for the offenses charged. A further question is whether the trial court should have permitted Brown to present evidence of Whitehead’s juvenile record and municipal warrants. Related issues involve whether the trial court’s exclusion of this evidence violated Brown’s constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him or prevented Brown from arguing Whitehead had a motive to lie and cooperate with the state.

SC95430_Brown_brief.pdf

SC95430_State_brief.pdf

SC95430_Brown_reply_brief.pdf