State v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 08 October 2013
• Docket Number: No. ED 98281.,ED 98281.
• Citation: 410 S.W.3d 760
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Sherard HENDERSON, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

410 S.W.3d 760

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Sherard HENDERSON, Appellant.

No. ED 98281.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Two.

Oct. 8, 2013.

Gwenda R. Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Presiding Judge.

The defendant, Sherard Henderson, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis following his conviction by a jury of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of section 571.070 RSMo. (Supp.2012).The trial court sentenced the defendant as a persistent felony offender to a five-year term of imprisonment.The defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence the defendant's booking form and a police detective's testimony about acquisition of the information on the form because the State failed to disclose the document before trial, in violation of Rule 25.03(A), and fundamental unfairness resulted.Because we conclude that admission of the booking form into evidence without its timely disclosure resulted in fundamental unfairness to the defendant, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Police conducted surveillance of an address on Rutger Street in the City of St. Louis based on information received from a confidential informant.Police observed the defendant at the target residence the one time they conducted surveillance.The defendant's vehicle was registered to him at that address, and police believed that the defendant lived there with his girlfriend.The police obtained a search warrant and, on April 7, 2011, assembled for a search of the Rutger Street residence.Police located the defendant's vehicle a few blocks from the residence with a flat tire.Police detained the defendant as he approached his vehicle, read him his Miranda rights,¹ and conveyed him to the Rutger Street residence where they executed the search warrant.

Detectives Rudolph and Boettigheimer testified that they observed the butt of a rifle protruding from the top of the kitchen cabinets when they first entered the residence.Detective Rudolph testified that the defendant told him that he, the defendant, had found the rifle in a dumpster and put it in his home for protection.The defendant acknowledged to Detective Rudolph that he realized he was prohibited from having a gun because of his status as a convicted felon.Examination of the rifle revealed that it was loaded with one cartridge in the chamber and eight in the magazine tube.Tests of the rifle established that it was operable.Police also seized a partially filled box of ammunition from the top of the kitchen cabinet.

During the search, police found certain paperwork naming the defendant and identifying his address as the Rutger Street address.The police found a red-light camera traffic ticket dated February 11, 2011, two months prior to the search.Detective Boettigheimer testified that red-light camera tickets are mailed to the address where the offending vehicle is registered.Police found other paperwork in the defendant's name, including a motor vehicle registration and unemployment and insurance paperwork.Some of this paperwork was dated March 2010.They also found an accident report from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department dated December 2010 and listing an address for the defendant on Oakwood Avenue.Detective Garcia, who assisted in the search of the residence, transported the defendant to the police station for booking where the defendant stated that his address was the Rutger Street residence.

On May 31, 2011, the defendant submitted a standard request for discovery to the State, requesting, inter alia,“[a]ny written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant or by any codefendant, a list of witnesses to the making, a list of witnesses to the acknowledgement of such statements and last known addresses of such witnesses [.]”The State did not disclose to the defendant the booking form containing the address provided by the defendant and his confirmation that the listed address was correct.The State did, however, endorse Detective Garcia as a witness.

In his opening statement made immediately after the State's opening statement, the defendant characterized the Rutger Street address as the residence of the defendant's girlfriend.After the State's first witness testified, the court adjourned for the evening.The following morning, the prosecutor disclosed to the trial court and defense counsel that she had just obtained the police booking form listing the defendant's address as the Rutger Street residence.The prosecutor stated that she obtained the booking form from police when it became apparent that the defendant was arguing he did not live at the Rutger Street address.Defense counsel objected to admission of the booking form and Detective Garcia's supporting testimony, but the trial court admitted the evidence.The trial court allowed defense counsel an opportunity to speak with Detective Garcia during a recess.Detective Garcia testified that he obtained information from the defendant for completing the booking form, and that the defendant provided the Rutger Street residence as his address.The defendant then reviewed and signed the booking form to confirm that the information on the form was correct.

The defendant asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence State's Exhibit 26, the defendant's booking form and Detective Garcia's testimony about acquisition of information on the form because the State failed to disclose the document before trial, in violation of Rule 25.03(A), and fundamental unfairness resulted.The defendant maintains that because the booking form listed the defendant's address as the residence on Rutger Street where police found the rifle, and because the defendant signed the form the day of his arrest, thus certifying that his personal information listed on the form was correct, the booking form and Detective Garcia's supporting testimony conclusively established for the jury the contested element of whether the police found the rifle in the defendant's residence.

In reviewing an alleged discovery violation, we must answer two questions: first, whether the State's failure to disclose the evidence violated Rule 25.03, and second, if the State violated Rule 25.03, then what is the appropriate sanction the trial court should have imposed.State v. Zetina–Torres,400 S.W.3d 343, 353(Mo.App. W.D.2013).We review for an abuse of discretion.Id.A trial court abuses its discretion where admission of the evidence results in fundamental unfairness to the defendant.Id.Fundamental unfairness occurs when the State's failure to disclose results in the defendant's “genuine surprise,” and the surprise prevents meaningful efforts to consider and prepare a strategy to address the evidence.State v. Thompson,985 S.W.2d 779, 785(Mo. banc 1999);Zetina–Torres,400 S.W.3d at 353–54.

The defendant submitted a standard request for discovery to the State, requesting, inter alia,“[a]ny written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant.”Rule 25.03 provides in relevant part that the State shall, upon written request from the defendant's counsel, disclose such material and information within its possession or control designated in said request, including any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant, and any papers or documents obtained from or belonging to the defendant that the State intends to introduce into evidence at trial.Rule 25.03(A)(2) and (6).The duty to disclose includes not only information actually known to the prosecutor, but also information that she may learn through reasonable inquiry.State v. Rippee,118 S.W.3d 682, 684(Mo.App. S.D.2003).“The purpose of discovery is to provide the defendant with an appropriate opportunity to avoid surprise and to prepare for trial in advance.”Id.If at any time during the proceeding, it comes to the court's attention that a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule, the court may order disclosure of the material and information not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, exclude such evidence, or enter such other order as the court deems just under the circumstances.Rule 25.18.

“Statements” for purposes of discovery pursuant to Rule 25.03(A)(2) are not limited to statements made to police during custodial interrogation.See, e.g., State v. Willis,2 S.W.3d 801(Mo.App. W.D.1999)(defendant's letters written to wife from jail treated as statements that State should have timely disclosed);State v. Scott,943 S.W.2d 730(Mo.App. W.D.1997)(State should have disclosed defendant's oral statements to lay witnesses admitting his guilt).The State violated Rule 25.03(A)(2) by failing to timely disclose the booking form in response to the defendant's discovery request and waiting until after trial began to disclose the form.

The next question is whether the trial court's admission of the booking form constituted an abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness.To establish fundamental unfairness, the defendant must show that the State's failure to disclose resulted in the defendant's “genuine surprise,” and that the surprise prevented...