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 a.m. Thursday, September 6, 2018
SC96867
State of Missouri v. Edward Hughes
St. Louis city
Constitutional challenge to search and seizure in drug possession case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96867 MP3 file
Hughes was represented during arguments by Scott Thompson of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Shaun Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
During a traffic stop, a St. Louis police officer determined there was an active arrest warrant for Edward Hughes, the rear seat passenger. The officer removed Hughes from the vehicle and placed him in handcuffs. A search revealed in Hughes’ trousers a knotted plastic bag containing an off-white substance the officer believed to be heroin. The officer also saw, in the back seat, a nylon bag found to contain a digital scale, an electric grinder with off-white residue, and a pill bottle with knotted baggies of suspected heroin and cocaine base. The state charged Hughes with two counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. At the July 2016 trial, Hughes sought to exclude evidence of the paraphernalia, arguing the search of the nylon bag was unlawful as a search incident to arrest because he already was arrested and secured in handcuffs before the bag was searched. He also sought to exclude evidence of the drugs because the officer could not say whether the suspected heroin was found in Hughes’ pocket or in the nylon bag. The circuit court declined to suppress the evidence and found Hughes guilty as charged. The circuit court sentenced Hughes to concurrent terms of seven years in prison for each of the drug possession convictions and 30 days in jail for the paraphernalia conviction. Hughes appeals.
This appeal presents one primary question for this Court – whether the search of the nylon bag was a lawful “search incident to arrest” or whether the search and subsequent seizure of the drugs and paraphernalia violated Hughes’ constitutional rights. A related issue is, if the search and seizure were unconstitutional, whether the circuit court should have suppressed the physical evidence under precedent from this Court and the United States Supreme Court.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues, as a friend of the Court, the officer’s search of the nylon bag was illegal, and, in light of this Court’s recent decision, the officer reasonably could not rely on a United States Supreme Court decision to determine otherwise.
SC96867_Hughes_brief
Listen to the oral argument: SC96867 MP3 file
Hughes was represented during arguments by Scott Thompson of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Shaun Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
During a traffic stop, a St. Louis police officer determined there was an active arrest warrant for Edward Hughes, the rear seat passenger. The officer removed Hughes from the vehicle and placed him in handcuffs. A search revealed in Hughes’ trousers a knotted plastic bag containing an off-white substance the officer believed to be heroin. The officer also saw, in the back seat, a nylon bag found to contain a digital scale, an electric grinder with off-white residue, and a pill bottle with knotted baggies of suspected heroin and cocaine base. The state charged Hughes with two counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. At the July 2016 trial, Hughes sought to exclude evidence of the paraphernalia, arguing the search of the nylon bag was unlawful as a search incident to arrest because he already was arrested and secured in handcuffs before the bag was searched. He also sought to exclude evidence of the drugs because the officer could not say whether the suspected heroin was found in Hughes’ pocket or in the nylon bag. The circuit court declined to suppress the evidence and found Hughes guilty as charged. The circuit court sentenced Hughes to concurrent terms of seven years in prison for each of the drug possession convictions and 30 days in jail for the paraphernalia conviction. Hughes appeals.
This appeal presents one primary question for this Court – whether the search of the nylon bag was a lawful “search incident to arrest” or whether the search and subsequent seizure of the drugs and paraphernalia violated Hughes’ constitutional rights. A related issue is, if the search and seizure were unconstitutional, whether the circuit court should have suppressed the physical evidence under precedent from this Court and the United States Supreme Court.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues, as a friend of the Court, the officer’s search of the nylon bag was illegal, and, in light of this Court’s recent decision, the officer reasonably could not rely on a United States Supreme Court decision to determine otherwise.
SC96867_Hughes_brief
SC96973
Cletus Greene v. State of Missouri
Cape Girardeau County
Constitutional challenge to search and seizure in drug possession case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96973 MP3 file
Greene was represented during arguments by Matthew Bell of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Shaun Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Responding to an anonymous tip about drug activity in May 2014, police officers found Cletus Greene smoking a cigarette along with another man on the second-floor balcony of a hotel in Jackson. A detective said Greene admitted having marijuana. The detective searched Greene’s pockets, removing marijuana and a cigarette pack. There was a dispute as to whether this search occurred before or after other officers saw the other man had a gun and placed Greene and the other man on the ground. An officer later discovered, inside Greene’s cigarette pack, a plastic baggie with an off-white substance later determined to be methamphetamine. The state charged Greene with one count of possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of marijuana. He pleaded guilty to the marijuana charge, and following a December 2014 trial, a jury found him guilty of the other possession charge. The circuit court sentenced Greene to concurrent terms of 10 years in prison for the possession conviction and time served in the county jail for the marijuana conviction. After the circuit court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal, Greene sought postconviction relief. The circuit court denied relief. Greene appeals.
This appeal presents one primary question for this Court – whether the search of the cigarette pack was a lawful “search incident to arrest” or whether the search and subsequent seizure of the methamphetamine violated Greene’s constitutional rights. A related issue is, if the search and seizure were unconstitutional, whether Greene’s counsel was ineffective in failing to object to admission of the methamphetamine into evidence under precedent from this Court and the United States Supreme Court.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues, as a friend of the Court, the officer’s search of the cigarette pack was illegal, and, in light of this Court’s recent decision, the officer reasonably could not rely on a United States Supreme Court decision to determine otherwise.
SC96973_Greene_brief
Listen to the oral argument: SC96973 MP3 file
Greene was represented during arguments by Matthew Bell of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Shaun Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Responding to an anonymous tip about drug activity in May 2014, police officers found Cletus Greene smoking a cigarette along with another man on the second-floor balcony of a hotel in Jackson. A detective said Greene admitted having marijuana. The detective searched Greene’s pockets, removing marijuana and a cigarette pack. There was a dispute as to whether this search occurred before or after other officers saw the other man had a gun and placed Greene and the other man on the ground. An officer later discovered, inside Greene’s cigarette pack, a plastic baggie with an off-white substance later determined to be methamphetamine. The state charged Greene with one count of possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of marijuana. He pleaded guilty to the marijuana charge, and following a December 2014 trial, a jury found him guilty of the other possession charge. The circuit court sentenced Greene to concurrent terms of 10 years in prison for the possession conviction and time served in the county jail for the marijuana conviction. After the circuit court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal, Greene sought postconviction relief. The circuit court denied relief. Greene appeals.
This appeal presents one primary question for this Court – whether the search of the cigarette pack was a lawful “search incident to arrest” or whether the search and subsequent seizure of the methamphetamine violated Greene’s constitutional rights. A related issue is, if the search and seizure were unconstitutional, whether Greene’s counsel was ineffective in failing to object to admission of the methamphetamine into evidence under precedent from this Court and the United States Supreme Court.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues, as a friend of the Court, the officer’s search of the cigarette pack was illegal, and, in light of this Court’s recent decision, the officer reasonably could not rely on a United States Supreme Court decision to determine otherwise.
SC96973_Greene_brief
SC97026
State ex rel. Kimberly M. Gardner, Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis v. The Honorable Timothy J. Boyer
St. Louis city
Challenge to disqualification of circuit attorney’s office from prosecuting a defendant
Listen to the oral argument: SC97026 MP3 file
The circuit attorney was represented during arguments by Chief Trial Assistant Robert Dierker of the circuit attorney’s office in St. Louis; the police officer was represented by Brian Millikan of Millikan Wright LLC in Kirkwood. The attorney general’s office, which filed a brief as a friend of the Court, was represented during arguments by Greg Goodwin of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
St. Louis’ circuit attorney charged Wendell Davis, a prior offender, with unlawful use of a weapon, resisting arrest and second-degree tampering. A metropolitan police officer identified in the criminal complaint only by his initials is endorsed as a witness in the prosecution and is the alleged victim of several of the felonies with which Davis is charged. During the incident giving rise to the charges, the officer shot Davis, leaving him paralyzed. The circuit attorney’s office undertook a review of the officer’s conduct in the shooting. Davis moved the circuit court to dismiss his case for failure to prosecute, as he had been confined in the hospital or the jail for more than 100 days with no preliminary hearing or grand jury indictment. The officer moved to disqualify the circuit attorney’s office from prosecuting Davis; the circuit attorney and Davis moved to strike the officer’s motion. Following a hearing, the circuit court entered its order disqualifying the circuit attorney and her office from prosecuting Davis and indicated its intent to appoint the attorney general as special prosecutor. The circuit attorney seeks this Court’s writ prohibiting the circuit court from taking any action other than to vacate its disqualification order.
This case presents one primary question for this Court – whether the circuit court abused its discretion in disqualifying the circuit attorney and her office from prosecuting Davis. Related issues include whether there was any potential conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety in the circuit attorney or her office prosecuting Davis; whether her office could review the officer’s use of force in effectuating Davis’ arrest while also prosecuting Davis; and whether the officer, as a witness in the prosecution, had standing to file the motion to disqualify.
The attorney general and Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed briefs as friends of the Court. The attorney general argues this Court need not determine whether the officer had standing to file his motion as the circuit court acted on its own motion and entered its disqualification order under its inherent authority; while disqualification of an individual prosecutor may be appropriate to protect an individual defendant, blanket disqualification of a local prosecutor’s office is a drastic remedy that should be imposed only rarely and under unusual circumstances; and the circuit court’s finding of an appearance of impropriety is supported by the record and is not an abuse of discretion. The association argues, while it disagrees with the practice of prosecutors investigating police officers who regularly appear in their local circuits, there was no conflict of interest here affecting Davis’ rights, the officer lacked standing to intervene and the circuit court abused its discretion in disqualifying the circuit attorney’s office.
SC97026_Circuit_Attorney_brief
SC97026_Davis_brief
SC97026_Officer_brief
SC97026_Circuit_Attorney_reply_brief
SC97026_MACDL_amicus_brief
SC97026_Attorney_General_amicus_brief
SC96931
State ex rel. Jean Peters-Baker v. The Honorable Bryan E. Round
Jackson County
Challenge to disqualification of prosecutor’s office from representing state in postconviction relief case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96931 MP3 file
The prosecutor was represented during arguments by Terrence Messonnier of the Jackson County prosecutor’s office in Kansas City; Skinner was represented by Laura Martin of the public defender’s office in Kansas City.
A jury found Tyrone Skinner guilty of unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action, and the circuit court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 15 years and three years, respectively. Skinner appealed. The assistant public defender who represented Skinner on direct appeal through its final disposition later left the public defender’s office and joined the Jackson County prosecutor’s office. Skinner also sought postconviction relief. His amended motion, filed after his appellate attorney joined the prosecutor’s office, does not include any claims against his appellate attorney but indicates she might be a witness for one of his claims. When the former assistant public defender joined the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office implemented a screening mechanism to assure she would have no involvement with any of the cases she handled while with the public defender’s office. Skinner filed a motion to disqualify the Jackson County prosecutor or her office from representing the state in his postconviction relief case. He asserts the attorney not only was his lead counsel on direct appeal but also had cursory discussions with him about postconviction issues. The prosecutor argued Skinner’s appellate attorney had not and would not have any communication with anyone in the office about any privileged communications the appellate attorney had with Skinner, and there was no basis to impute that attorney’s disqualification to the rest of the office. Ultimately, the circuit court disqualified the prosecutor and her office from representing the state in Skinner’s postconviction relief case. The prosecutor seeks this Court’s writ prohibiting the circuit court from disqualifying her and her office in Skinner’s case.
This case presents one primary question for this Court – whether the circuit court abused its discretion in disqualifying the prosecutor and her office from representing the state in Skinner’s postconviction relief proceeding. Related issues include whether Skinner established adequate cause or other legal justification for the disqualification, whether the screening mechanism the prosecutor’s office had implemented was adequate and whether the theoretical speculation this mechanism could fail is sufficient to demonstrate an appearance of impropriety.
The attorney general and Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys filed briefs as friends of the Court. The attorney general argues blanket disqualification of a local prosecutor’s office is an extreme remedy that should be imposed only rarely and under unusual circumstances; the prosecutor’s office screening policy dispelled any appearance of impropriety; and, therefore, the circuit court abused its discretion in disqualifying the entire prosecutor’s office. The association argues requiring blanket disqualification of an entire prosecutor’s office that has hired a former public defender and has screened that attorney from contact with other attorneys will have a chilling effect on prosecutors’ hiring practices and will result in numerous special prosecutor appointments.
SC96931_Prosecutor_brief
Listen to the oral argument: SC96931 MP3 file
The prosecutor was represented during arguments by Terrence Messonnier of the Jackson County prosecutor’s office in Kansas City; Skinner was represented by Laura Martin of the public defender’s office in Kansas City.
A jury found Tyrone Skinner guilty of unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action, and the circuit court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 15 years and three years, respectively. Skinner appealed. The assistant public defender who represented Skinner on direct appeal through its final disposition later left the public defender’s office and joined the Jackson County prosecutor’s office. Skinner also sought postconviction relief. His amended motion, filed after his appellate attorney joined the prosecutor’s office, does not include any claims against his appellate attorney but indicates she might be a witness for one of his claims. When the former assistant public defender joined the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office implemented a screening mechanism to assure she would have no involvement with any of the cases she handled while with the public defender’s office. Skinner filed a motion to disqualify the Jackson County prosecutor or her office from representing the state in his postconviction relief case. He asserts the attorney not only was his lead counsel on direct appeal but also had cursory discussions with him about postconviction issues. The prosecutor argued Skinner’s appellate attorney had not and would not have any communication with anyone in the office about any privileged communications the appellate attorney had with Skinner, and there was no basis to impute that attorney’s disqualification to the rest of the office. Ultimately, the circuit court disqualified the prosecutor and her office from representing the state in Skinner’s postconviction relief case. The prosecutor seeks this Court’s writ prohibiting the circuit court from disqualifying her and her office in Skinner’s case.
This case presents one primary question for this Court – whether the circuit court abused its discretion in disqualifying the prosecutor and her office from representing the state in Skinner’s postconviction relief proceeding. Related issues include whether Skinner established adequate cause or other legal justification for the disqualification, whether the screening mechanism the prosecutor’s office had implemented was adequate and whether the theoretical speculation this mechanism could fail is sufficient to demonstrate an appearance of impropriety.
The attorney general and Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys filed briefs as friends of the Court. The attorney general argues blanket disqualification of a local prosecutor’s office is an extreme remedy that should be imposed only rarely and under unusual circumstances; the prosecutor’s office screening policy dispelled any appearance of impropriety; and, therefore, the circuit court abused its discretion in disqualifying the entire prosecutor’s office. The association argues requiring blanket disqualification of an entire prosecutor’s office that has hired a former public defender and has screened that attorney from contact with other attorneys will have a chilling effect on prosecutors’ hiring practices and will result in numerous special prosecutor appointments.
SC96931_Prosecutor_brief