Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of three counts of first-degree statutory sodomy and three counts of incest and sentencing him to a total of eighty-seven years' imprisonment, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in admitting evidence pursuant to Mo. Const. art. I, 18(c), overruling objections to the State's closing argument, admitting expert testimony and particular exhibits, and finding sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error, plain or otherwise, or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below. View "State v. Minor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of tampering with a judicial officer and second-degree harassment of his probation officer, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's facial overbreadth challenge to the second-degree harassment statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. 565.091, was without merit; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for second-degree harassment; and (3) the district court did not violate Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy when it sentenced Defendant for both tampering with a judicial officer and second-degree harassment. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant for driving while intoxicated and sentencing him as a habitual offender, holding that the circuit court erred in sentencing Defendant as a habitual offender.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove he was a habitual offender based solely on a certified copy of his Colorado driving record. Specifically, Defendant argued that the State failed to introduce facts underlying the Colorado convictions to show that the conduct at issue would qualify as intoxication-related traffic offenses (IRTOs) in Missouri at the time of his current offense. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was convicted of at least five prior IRTOs based solely on his Colorado driving record. View "State v. Shepherd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of assault and armed criminal action following a jury trial, holding that the circuit court prejudicially erred in failing to give the "castle doctrine" self-defense jury instruction that Defendant requested.During trial, Defendant requested a self-defense instruction justifying the use of deadly force by a person lawfully in a vehicle, otherwise known as the "castle doctrine." The circuit court refused the castle doctrine instruction but gave the general self-defense instruction. Defendant was subsequently found guilty on all counts. The Supreme Court vacated the convictions, holding (1) the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the castle doctrine; and (2) Defendant was prejudiced by the error. View "State v. Straughter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of prohibition requesting that the circuit court prohibit Respondent from determining that he must register as a sex offender, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to the writ.Petitioner pleaded guilty to four counts of endangering the welfare of a child. Several months later, Petitioner's probation officer notified him that he was required to register as a sex offender based on allegations in charges that the State later abandoned. Petitioner then filed this petition. The circuit court denied a permanent writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in using the State's abandoned charges to find Petitioner pleaded guilty to sex offenses; but (2) a writ of prohibition was not the proper remedy. View "Doe v. Frisz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of fifteen counts of unlawful possession of a firearm following a jury trial, holding that the circuit court committed reversible error by allowing the jury to hear a prejudicial, out-of-court statement made by a witness who never appeared or testified at trial.After Defendant was arrested on allegations of domestic violence against his wife, Beckey, Beckey told officers that Defendant illegally possessed numerous firearms. Defendant was subsequently charged with fifteen counts of unlawfully possessing a firearm. During trial, the out-of-court statement made by Beckey, who did not appear at trial, was elicited during an officer's testimony. The circuit court ruled that Beckey’s statement could be considered as substantive evidence. Defendant was subsequently convicted. The Supreme Court vacated the conviction, holding that the circuit court prejudicially erred in allowing the officer's testimony over Defendant's violation. View "State v. Hollowell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court finding Defendant to be a dangerous offender and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the State failed to plead all essential facts and introduce evidence establishing sufficient facts to warrant a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was a dangerous offender.A jury found Defendant guilty of four counts of second-degree burglary and sentenced him to a total of thirty years' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court committed plain error in finding that he was a dangerous offender. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant's sentences, holding that the circuit court plainly erred in sentencing Defendant to sentences greater than the maximum authorized by law, resulting in manifest injustice. View "State v. Yount" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court determining that Mo. Rev. Stat. 595.201, as applied to defense attorneys, is constitutionally invalid and that the passage of Senate Bill 569 (SB 569) was procedurally proper, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment.Plaintiffs - five public defenders and three criminal defendants - brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutional validity of statutes relating to victims of sexual offenses, including SB 569 and section 595.021, which requires criminal defense attorneys to provide information to victims of sexual assault offenses. The circuit court (1) declared section 595.201 constitutionally invalid as as applied to defense counsel because it violated defense attorneys' rights to freedom of speech, and (2) rejected procedural challenges to SB 569 as a whole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly determined that (1) section 595.201.2(4)'s requirements violate defense attorneys' free speech rights, and (2) the General Assembly complied with the procedural limitations imposed by the Missouri Constitution in passing SB 569. View "Fox v. State" on Justia Law