The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments. Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.
DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
9:30 a.m. Tuesday, October 3, 2017
SC96095
State of Missouri v. Bryan M. Pierce
Jackson County
Challenge to search and sentence following conviction for possession of child pornography
Listen to the oral argument: SC96095 MP3 audio file
Pierce was represented during arguments by Natalie Hull Hoge of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by Nathan J. Aquino of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City. Judge Gary W. Lynch – a judge on the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – sat in this case by special designation in place of Judge W. Brent Powell.
Officers responded to a June 2013 call regarding an emotionally disturbed person at Bryan Pierce’s residence in Kansas City. Pierce met them at the front door, telling them his cat had told him to stab himself. Officers searched Pierce’s residence while another officer waited with Pierce for an ambulance to transport Pierce to a local hospital. A screensaver running on a computer in the last room officers searched appeared to be a slideshow of children in sexual poses, and so officers recovered the computer as evidence. Ultimately the state charged Pierce, as a prior and persistent offender, with possession of child pornography. Pierce moved to suppress the computer evidence, arguing his mental state at the time precluded him from consenting to the search of his residence and, even if he had consented, officers should not have continued searching his residence after he left in the ambulance. The circuit court overruled Pierce’s motion and ultimately found him guilty as charged. At sentencing, the circuit court stated it understood the range of punishment, as it had found Pierce to be a prior and persistent offender, was 10 to 30 years in prison. The state indicated it had agreed to a prison sentence of no more than 20 years. The court sentenced Pierce to 15 years in prison. Pierce appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for the Court. One is whether the circuit court had a materially false understanding of the possible range of punishment – whether the minimum punishment Pierce faced was five rather than 10 years in prison – and whether the sentence imposed is a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. The other question is whether the circuit court should have excluded the computer evidence. Related issues involve whether Pierce was able to consent at the time or, if not, whether the officers had exigent or other emergency circumstances justifying their warrantless search of Pierce’s residence.
Listen to the oral argument: SC96095 MP3 audio file
Pierce was represented during arguments by Natalie Hull Hoge of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by Nathan J. Aquino of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City. Judge Gary W. Lynch – a judge on the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – sat in this case by special designation in place of Judge W. Brent Powell.
Officers responded to a June 2013 call regarding an emotionally disturbed person at Bryan Pierce’s residence in Kansas City. Pierce met them at the front door, telling them his cat had told him to stab himself. Officers searched Pierce’s residence while another officer waited with Pierce for an ambulance to transport Pierce to a local hospital. A screensaver running on a computer in the last room officers searched appeared to be a slideshow of children in sexual poses, and so officers recovered the computer as evidence. Ultimately the state charged Pierce, as a prior and persistent offender, with possession of child pornography. Pierce moved to suppress the computer evidence, arguing his mental state at the time precluded him from consenting to the search of his residence and, even if he had consented, officers should not have continued searching his residence after he left in the ambulance. The circuit court overruled Pierce’s motion and ultimately found him guilty as charged. At sentencing, the circuit court stated it understood the range of punishment, as it had found Pierce to be a prior and persistent offender, was 10 to 30 years in prison. The state indicated it had agreed to a prison sentence of no more than 20 years. The court sentenced Pierce to 15 years in prison. Pierce appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for the Court. One is whether the circuit court had a materially false understanding of the possible range of punishment – whether the minimum punishment Pierce faced was five rather than 10 years in prison – and whether the sentence imposed is a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. The other question is whether the circuit court should have excluded the computer evidence. Related issues involve whether Pierce was able to consent at the time or, if not, whether the officers had exigent or other emergency circumstances justifying their warrantless search of Pierce’s residence.
SC96095_Pierce_brief
Listen to the oral argument: SC96341 MP3 audio file
Gilmore was represented during arguments by Eric Mitchell of Johns, Mitchell & Duncan LLC in Clinton; the state was represented by Christine K. Lesicko of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
A sheriff’s deputy investigating possible drug activity in September 2014 in Appleton City arrested Vicki Gilmore and the occupant of a residence she had been observed visiting frequently. She admitted she and the occupant had been selling marijuana but had run out of their supply. During a search of the residence, officers found drug paraphernalia, marijuana and methamphetamine. Following a trial, the jury found Gilmore guilty of possession of a controlled substance. The circuit court sentenced her, as a prior offender, to seven years in prison; suspended execution of her sentence; and placed her on probation for five years. Gilmore appeals
This appeal presents one primary question for the Court – whether there was sufficient evidence to prove Gilmore knew about the methamphetamine or had control over it so as to sustain her conviction for possession.
SC96095_State_brief
Perry was represented during arguments by Jedd C. Schneider of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Robert J. Bartholomew of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Believing Joseph Perry might be driving with a suspended license, a Chillicothe police officer followed him, ultimately asking to speak with him when he parked in a driveway. During their conversation, the officer believed she saw Perry pull what appeared to be a plastic bag out of his front pocket. Perry ultimately took off running and climbed over a fence but then surrendered when he saw another officer. Officers found, inside a hollow post of the fence, a plastic bag containing a substance later determined to be methamphetamine. The state charged Perry, as a prior and persistent offender, with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Perry moved to suppress evidence of the bag of drugs, arguing it was the product of an unconstitutional search following an unlawful detention. The circuit court overruled his motion. A jury found Perry guilty as charged. At sentencing, the state advised the circuit court the range of punishment was five to 15 years in prison. The court sentenced Perry, as a prior and persistent offender, to eight years in prison. Perry appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for the Court. One is whether the circuit court should have excluded the drug evidence. Related issues involve the circumstances leading to the officers finding the drugs – whether the officer had reasonable suspicion Perry was involved in criminal activity so as to justify his detention, whether their encounter was consensual, and whether the drugs were abandoned. The other question is whether the circuit court had a materially false understanding of the possible range of punishment – whether the minimum punishment was less than one year in the county jail or fewer than five years in prison rather than at least five years in prison – and whether the sentence imposed violates Perry’s right to due process.
Ajak was represented during arguments by Amy M. Bartholow of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Kristina Susan Zeit of the Buchanan County prosecutor’s office in St. Joseph.
SC96095_Pierce_reply_brief
Listen to the oral argument: SC96087 MP3 audio fileSC96087
State of Missouri v. Joseph Fountain Perry
Livingston County
Challenge to search and sentence following conviction for drug possessionPerry was represented during arguments by Jedd C. Schneider of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Robert J. Bartholomew of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Believing Joseph Perry might be driving with a suspended license, a Chillicothe police officer followed him, ultimately asking to speak with him when he parked in a driveway. During their conversation, the officer believed she saw Perry pull what appeared to be a plastic bag out of his front pocket. Perry ultimately took off running and climbed over a fence but then surrendered when he saw another officer. Officers found, inside a hollow post of the fence, a plastic bag containing a substance later determined to be methamphetamine. The state charged Perry, as a prior and persistent offender, with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Perry moved to suppress evidence of the bag of drugs, arguing it was the product of an unconstitutional search following an unlawful detention. The circuit court overruled his motion. A jury found Perry guilty as charged. At sentencing, the state advised the circuit court the range of punishment was five to 15 years in prison. The court sentenced Perry, as a prior and persistent offender, to eight years in prison. Perry appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for the Court. One is whether the circuit court should have excluded the drug evidence. Related issues involve the circumstances leading to the officers finding the drugs – whether the officer had reasonable suspicion Perry was involved in criminal activity so as to justify his detention, whether their encounter was consensual, and whether the drugs were abandoned. The other question is whether the circuit court had a materially false understanding of the possible range of punishment – whether the minimum punishment was less than one year in the county jail or fewer than five years in prison rather than at least five years in prison – and whether the sentence imposed violates Perry’s right to due process.
SC96333
State of Missouri v. Daniel Duot Ajak
Buchanan County
Challenge to instruction, sufficiency of evidence following conviction for resisting arrest
Listen to the oral argument: SC96333 MP3 audio fileAjak was represented during arguments by Amy M. Bartholow of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Kristina Susan Zeit of the Buchanan County prosecutor’s office in St. Joseph.
Police were called to break up a February 2015 domestic dispute between Daniel Ajak and his girlfriend’s adult children at their home in St. Joseph. Police arrived and ultimately arrested Ajak for domestic assault, He became agitated, yelling and screaming he was the victim, and jerked his arms and twisted his body while officers were escorting him to the police vehicle. The state charged Ajak with domestic assault and resisting arrest. The jury found him guilty only of resisting arrest, and the circuit court sentenced him to 280 days in jail. Ajak appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for the Court. One is whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain Ajak’s conviction for resisting arrest. The other is whether the circuit court improperly instructed the jury by deviating from the approved instruction and permitting the jury to conclude Ajak impeded his arrest through “physical interference” and, if so, whether this prejudiced Ajak.
SC96333_Ajak_reply_brief
This appeal presents two questions for the Court. One is whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain Ajak’s conviction for resisting arrest. The other is whether the circuit court improperly instructed the jury by deviating from the approved instruction and permitting the jury to conclude Ajak impeded his arrest through “physical interference” and, if so, whether this prejudiced Ajak.
SC96341
State of Missouri v. Vicki Leann Gilmore
St. Clair County
Challenge to sufficiency of evidence to support drug possession convictionGilmore was represented during arguments by Eric Mitchell of Johns, Mitchell & Duncan LLC in Clinton; the state was represented by Christine K. Lesicko of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
A sheriff’s deputy investigating possible drug activity in September 2014 in Appleton City arrested Vicki Gilmore and the occupant of a residence she had been observed visiting frequently. She admitted she and the occupant had been selling marijuana but had run out of their supply. During a search of the residence, officers found drug paraphernalia, marijuana and methamphetamine. Following a trial, the jury found Gilmore guilty of possession of a controlled substance. The circuit court sentenced her, as a prior offender, to seven years in prison; suspended execution of her sentence; and placed her on probation for five years. Gilmore appeals
This appeal presents one primary question for the Court – whether there was sufficient evidence to prove Gilmore knew about the methamphetamine or had control over it so as to sustain her conviction for possession.