Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of kidnapping in the first degree and one count of committing violence against an employee of the Department of Corrections, holding that there was no plain error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in failing to conduct a sufficient Faretta hearing to ensure his waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and in ordering his sentence to consecutively to his prior sentence, in violation of his plea agreement with the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the circuit court plainly erred in sustaining Defendant's request to represent himself; and (2) the circuit court did not err in ordering Defendant's sentences to run consecutively. View "State v. Teter" on Justia Law

In 1995, MacColl, charged with having “deviate sexual intercourse with an unnamed juvenile female,” pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct, a class A misdemeanor. The circuit court sentenced MacColl to one year in jail, suspended the execution of her sentence, and placed her on two years’ probation. MacColl completed required sexual offender treatment programs; the circuit court discharged MacColl from probation in 1997.In 2000, Boone County sheriff’s office personnel advised MacColl to register as a sexual offender under the Missouri Sex Offender Registration Act (MO-SORA) MacColl registered as a sex offender and has maintained her registration. In 2020, MacColl sought removal from the registry, arguing that she does not have a prior or current independent obligation to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 34 U.S.C. 20901 (SORNA) The circuit court found MacColl was required to register in 1995 because the offense to which she pleaded guilty was a sex offense against a minor as defined by the federal Jacob Wetterling Act (SORNA's predecessor); MacColl was required to register under MO-SORA beginning in 2000 because she was someone who has been required to register under federal law.The Missouri Supreme Court reversed. A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the sex offender treatment programs MacColl completed during her probation qualified as a program certified by a jurisdiction or the attorney general to entitle her to a reduction in her registration period, which would resolve whether MacColl ever was required to register. View "MacColl v. Missouri State Highway Patrol" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's pro se motion for postconviction relief filed under Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035, holding that remand was required for the motion court to make a factual finding so it may determine whether Defendant's pro se motion was timely filed.Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of driving while intoxicated, one in Laclede County and one in Dallas County. No written judgment was entered in the Dallas County case until when Defendant was found to have violated the probation conditions in that case. Defendant's sentence in the Dallas County case was then executed. Thereafter, Defendant filed his pro se motion for postconviction relief, which the motion court denied. The court of appeals remanded the case. Before the Supreme Court the State argued that Defendant's case must be dismissed because his original pro se motion was filed out of time. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that a factual finding was required as to when Defendant was first delivered to the Department of Corrections on the Dallas County case so it may be determined on the basis of that fact whether Defendant's postconviction motion was timely filed. View "Hatmon v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding Defendant guilty of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy and one count of first-degree child molestation, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the circuit court committed plain error by proceeding to a bench trial without obtaining a sufficient waiver of his constitutional right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial was constitutionally sufficient; and (2) the circuit court did not plainly err by admitting a video recording of the victim's forensic interview pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 492.304. View "State v. Hilbert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, three counts of first-degree child molestation, and one count of enticement of a child, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to sever count four from counts one through five; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) the circuit court did not plainly err in failing sua sponte to declare a mistrial based on testimony the State elicited during Defendant's cross-examination; and (4) the circuit court did not plainly err in failing sua sponte to declare a mistrial based on a comment made by the State during closing argument. View "State v. Boyd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a preliminary writ of prohibition ordering the circuit court to take no further action in the underlying criminal matter other than dismissing the Washington County prosecuting attorney's motion to vacate or set aside Michael Politte's second-degree murder conviction, holding that the writ was warranted.Politte was convicted in the circuit court of St. Francois County of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. The Washington County prosecuting attorney later filed a motion seeking to vacate or set aside Politte's conviction under Mo. Rev. Stat. 547.031. After the attorney general's motion to dismiss was overruled, the attorney general sought a writ prohibiting the circuit court from taking any action other than to dismiss the prosecuting attorney's motion to vacate or set aside Politte's conviction. The Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition, holding that the motion to vacate or set aside Politte's conviction failed to comply with the requirements of Mo. Rev. Stat. 547.031. View "State ex rel. Bailey v. Honorable Fulton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the circuit court denying Appellants' petitions for removal from the Missouri sex offender registry, holding that the circuit court did not err.Appellants Brock Smith and Gary Ford separately appealed two circuit court judgments denying their separately-filed petitions for removal from the Missouri sex offender registry. Smith argued that because he was a tier I sex offender, Mo. Rev. Stat. 589.400.1(7) did not mandate that he remain on the registry for his lifetime. Ford argued that the lower court misstated and misapplied the law in denying his petition. The Supreme Court affirmed in both cases, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that Appellants were not entitled to removal from the Missouri sex offender registry. View "Smith v. St. Louis County Police" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying Appellant's claim for benefits from the Second Injury Fund, holding that the Commission did not abuse its discretion and that the Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence.On appeal, Appellant challenged the Commission's decision to overrule his motion to conduct additional discovery and submit additional evidence after the Supreme Court's decision in Cosby v. Treasurer of Missouri, 579 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. banc 2019) interpreting Mo. Rev. Stat. 287.220 and the Commission's finding that Appellant failed to show any medically documented qualifying preexisting disabilities that qualified him for benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion to conduct additional discovery and submit additional evidence; and (2) the Commission's findings were supported by substantial and competent evidence. View "Dubuc v. Treasurer of State of Missouri Custodian of Second Injury Fund" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled two motions in this case where Kevin Johnson was scheduled for execution on November 29, 2022, holding that the two motions to stay Johnson's execution did not show a likelihood of success.Johnson was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Fourteen days before Johnson's execution date, the special prosecutor filed a motion to vacate his conviction under Mo. Rev. Stat. 547.031, claiming that his prosecution violated equal protection because it was motivated, in part, by discriminatory intent. The circuit court denied the motion, and both the special prosecutor and Johnson appealed. While the appeals were pending, the special prosecutor filed a motion for stay of Johnson's execution, and Johnson filed a motion for stay of execution in the direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court overruled both motions, holding that neither the special prosecutor nor Johnson showed a likelihood of success on their claims. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of driving while intoxicated as a persistent offender and sentencing him to four years' imprisonment, suspended in favor of supervised probation, holding that the circuit court did not err.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court abused its discretion in overruling his pretrial motion to suppress and his pretrial motion in limine and allowing testimony of his breath test results. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that a review of the facts and circumstances of this case failed to reveal any error in the circuit court proceedings that was evidence, obvious, or clear. View "Petersen v. State" on Justia Law