Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.070.1(1), which prohibits nonviolent felons from possessing firearms. Defendant had been convicted previously of the nonviolent felony of unlawful use of a weapon. Defendant moved to dismiss the unlawful possession charge, arguing that section 571.070.1 violates the right to bear arms set forth in Mo. Const. art. I, 23. The trial court agreed with Defendant and dismissed the firearms possession count. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Missouri Constitution does not prohibit the legislature from restricting nonviolent felons’ right to possess firearms and that the statutory bar is valid. Remanded. View "State v. Clay" on Justia Law

Defendant purchased two assault rifles and engaged in target practice while planning to commit a mass shooting. Defendant’s mother alerted the police. During an interview at the police station, Defendant admitted that his plan was to go to the local Walmart and start shooting at random. Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree assault and armed criminal action. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that there was insufficient evidence that he had the purpose to commit first-degree assault and that he took a substantial step toward commission of the offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a reasonable fact-finder could have found that Defendant had the intent to commit first-degree assault and that Defendant’s conduct constituted substantial steps; and (2) the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of his police interview. View "State v. Lammers" on Justia Law

In 1973, Appellant pleaded guilty to felony forgery. In 1975, Appellant was discharged from probation pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 549.111.2, which provided that individuals discharged from probation were “restored all the rights and privileges of citizenship.” In 1977, the statute was repealed. In 2013, Appellant applied for a concealed carry permit. The county sheriff denied the application due to Appellant’s 1973 felony forgery conviction. The circuit court affirmed, concluding that Appellant’s prior guilty plea rendered him ineligible for a concealed carry permit pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.101, which expressly limits the availability of a concealed carry permit to individuals who have “not pled guilty to…a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 571.101 is not unconstitutionally retrospective and that Appellant had no vested right to a concealed weapon permit. View "Hill v. Boyer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree statutory sodomy. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by failing to sustain his application for a change of venue under Mo. R. Crim. P. 32.03. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived his right to a change of venue by allowing his application to languish in the case until the day before trial while affirmatively representing to the trial court that he had no pending motions in the case; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant’s motion for a continuance. View "State v. Chambers" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with attempted manufacture of a controlled substance of maintaining a public nuisance. During closing arguments, the State presented to the jury a slideshow that included an enlarged color photograph of Defendant in which Defendant was wearing an orange prison jumpsuit with the words “GUILTY” superimposed in large letters running diagonally across his face. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on the State’s use of the altered evidence in the slideshow during closing argument. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the State’s use of the altered photograph of Defendant impinged upon the presumption of innocence and the fairness of the fact-finding process, and therefore, the trial court erred in failing to grant Defendant a new trial. View "State v. Walter" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count each of burglary in the first degree and an associated count of armed criminal action, attempted robbery in the first degree and an associated count of armed criminal action, assault in the third degree, and resisting arrest for a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient for jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed armed criminal action in connection with the burglary; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the the resisting arrest conviction; and (3) the trial court did not err by overruling Defendant’s motion for a continuance. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Respondent was arrested for driving while intoxicated and agreed to take a breath test on a breath analyzer, which measured a .172-percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The Director of Revenue revoked Respondent’s driving privileges based on the results of the breath test. Respondent timely filed a petition for a trial de novo, arguing that her breath test results were invalid because the breath analyzer used in her case was calibrated using only one solution. The trial court agreed with Respondent and excluded the breath test results. As a result, the court concluded that the Director failed to meet the State’s burden of providing sufficient credible evidence that Respondent drove with a BAC above .08 percent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) correctly applied the regulation in place at the time of the breath test; and (2) correctly concluded that the Director failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the results of Respondent’s breath test. View "Stiers v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

A police officer searched a plastic grocery bag that Defendant was holding after he was already handcuffed and seated in the police car. Inside the bag the officer discovered heroin. Defendant was charged with the class C felony of drug possession. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of the heroin, arguing that neither the arrest nor the search of his plastic bag was lawful. The circuit court overruled the motion, and Defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the heroin because (1) the arrest of Defendant was lawful; and (2) the search of Defendant’s bag was not a lawful search incident to arrest, but the exclusionary rule did not apply to this case. View "State v. Carrawell" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for the murders to two sisters. Petitioner was sentenced to death for the murders. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court, claiming that newly discovered evidence showed that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding material evidence and that the Brady violation was prejudicial. The Supreme Court appointed a special master to take evidence and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as to Petitioner’s allegation. The master eventually issued a report finding that the State had violated Brady by failing to produce evidence favorable to Petitioner and that the State’s failure to disclose this evidence was prejudicial to Petitioner. The Supreme Court adopted the master’s recommendation and vacated Petitioner’s convictions and sentences for first-degree murder, holding that substantial evidence supported the master’s findings that the State deliberately violated Brady and that the suppressed evidence, along with the totality of other evidence, showed cause and prejudice sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. View "State ex rel. Clemons v. Larkins" on Justia Law

Father was charged with criminal nonsupport in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 568.040. Father filed a motion to dismiss the information and to declare section 568.040.1 unconstitutional as a violation of his due process rights under the United States and Missouri constitutions. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the information, concluding that the 2011 amendment to the statute, which removed the phrase “without good cause” as an element of the offense, and instead expressed it as an affirmative defense, impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant on an element of the crime. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute is constitutional because due process allows a defendant to bear the burden of pleading and proving the affirmative defense of inability to provide support for good cause. View "State v. Meacham" on Justia Law