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. Wednesday, November 28, 2018
SC97229
State of Missouri v. Danielle Ann Zuroweste
Warren County
Challenge to use of jailhouse telephone call as evidence in drug possession trial
Listen to the oral argument: SC97229 MP3 file
Zuroweste was represented during arguments by Carol Jansen of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Evan Buchheim of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City. Judge Thomas N. Chapman – a judge on the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – sat in this case by special designation in place of Judge Patricia Breckenridge.
A Foristell police officer arrested Danielle Zuroweste after finding a plastic baggie containing a white powdery residue in her vehicle. Five days later, she made a telephone call from the Warren County jail, where she was incarcerated, to a friend who was watching her children. During discovery five months before trial, Zuroweste requested any written or recorded statements and the substance of any statements she had made. One business day before the trial was scheduled to begin, the state informed Zuroweste it intended to introduce the jailhouse telephone call at trial. Zuroweste moved to exclude the call and any related testimony as a sanction for the state’s late disclosure. During a hearing, the state argued it disclosed the call as soon as the state received it. The circuit court acknowledged the telephone call may have affected whether Zuroweste took a plea or chose to testify but, because the call was admissible and defense counsel had time to look at it and listen to it, it overruled Zuroweste’s motion. At trial, the state characterized the call as Zuroweste confessing to her friend she knows she had a problem with methamphetamine and used it to argue she was aware of the presence and nature of the trace amount of methamphetamine found in the baggie in her vehicle. The jury found Zuroweste guilty of possession of a controlled substance. She moved for a new trial on the ground the late disclosure of the jailhouse telephone call violated her right to a fair trial. The circuit court overruled the motion and sentenced her to seven years in prison. Zuroweste appeals.
This appeal presents one primary question for this Court – whether the circuit court should have admitted the recorded telephone call and related testimony into evidence. Related issues include whether the state failed to disclose the telephone call in a timely manner, whether the state could have obtained the call earlier, whether the timing of the disclosure affected the ability of the defense to prepare adequately and whether the late disclosure violated Zuroweste’s constitutional rights to due process of law and a fair trial.
SC97229_Zuroweste_brief
SC97394
Matthew M. Carvalho v. Director of Revenue
Franklin County
Challenges to admissibility of breath test results and notice requirements in driving license suspension case
Listen to the oral argument: SC97394 MP3 file
Carvalho was represented during arguments by Nathan Swanson of Rosenblum Schwartz & Fry in St. Louis; the director was represented by General Counsel Michael Martinich-Sauter of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
A Washington police officer arrested Matthew Carvalho for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. At the police station, the officer asked Carvalho to submit to a breath test. Carvalho initially declined but, after learning he automatically would lose his driving privileges for a year for refusing the test and speaking with an attorney, he consented. The test revealed his blood alcohol content was 0.087, which exceeded the legal limit. The officer seized Carvalho’s driving license and gave him a notice of suspension. Following an administrative review, a department of revenue hearing officer sustained the suspension. He appealed to the circuit court, which sustained the suspension. Carvalho appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for this Court. One is whether the circuit court should have admitted the results of the breath test into evidence. Related issues involve whether the director of revenue is required to file reports showing periodic maintenance of the breath analyzer used in the test before the results of the test can be admitted into evidence and, if so, whether such a report was filed in a timely manner in accordance with a state regulation. The other question is whether the statutory notice requirements regarding the implied consent warning and notice of suspension violated Carvalho’s constitutional right to procedural due process.
SC97394_Carvalho_brief_filed_in_ED
SC97394_Director_brief
SC97394_Carvalho_reply_brief