State v. Jackson-Kuofie
| Decision Date | 07 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | WD84639 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. MURIEL JACKSON-KUOFIE, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI THE HONORABLE DENNIS C. ECKOLD, JUDGE
W DOUGLAS THOMSON, JUDGE
The State appeals the trial court's order dismissing the criminal complaint against Muriel Jackson-Kuofie ("Jackson-Kuofie") with prejudice due to the State's violation of Rule 25.03(b)(2), [1] in failing to disclose a witness list to defense counsel prior to the preliminary hearing.[2] On appeal, the State claims the trial court plainly erred in entering its order of dismissal because the trial court erroneously relied on Rule 25.03(b)(2), which applies only to disclosures after indictment or the filing of an information. The State claims Rule 25.03(a) applies to disclosures upon the filing of a felony complaint, which does not require the State disclose a witness list. The State claims the trial court's error resulted in prejudice and manifest injustice in precluding the State from prosecuting Jackson-Kuofie for the crime alleged in the complaint. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On July 6, 2020, Jackson-Kuofie was charged by complaint with the class D felony of abuse of a person receiving health care in the Platte County Circuit Court.[3]A preliminary hearing was held on June 25, 2021. When the State called its first witness, defense counsel objected arguing the State failed to disclose a witness list for the preliminary hearing in violation of Rule 25.03.[4] The State responded that they disclosed approximately 1, 400 pages of discovery which contained the names of witnesses but conceded a witness list was not provided. The trial court sustained defense counsel's objection for the first witness and every witness thereafter on the same grounds. The trial court stated, "[T]he Court finds that the State has failed to comply with 25.03[(b)](2), and that's my ruling." The State requested a continuance so that they could provide a witness list to which defense counsel objected. The trial court concluded, "So having found that the State failed to comply with Rule 25.03 of the Supreme Court, specifically 25.03 subparagraph B, subparagraph 2, this matter is dismissed." The trial court ordered the dismissal with prejudice at defense counsel's request.
The State appeals.
The State concedes that it did not present its appellate claim to the trial court. "'An issue that was never presented to or decided by the trial court is not preserved for appellate review.'" State v. Davis, 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we review for plain error. Id.
Rule 30.20 authorizes this Court to review, in its discretion, "plain errors affecting substantial rights . . . when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom." Our Supreme Court has established a threshold review to determine if a court should exercise its discretion to entertain a Rule 30.20 review of a claimed plain error. First, we determine whether or not the claimed error "facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that 'manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted[.]'" State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995) (quoting Rule 30.20). If not, we should not exercise our discretion to conduct a Rule 30.20 plain error review. If, however, we conclude that we have passed this threshold, we may proceed to review the claim under a two-step process pursuant to Rule 30.20. In the first step, we decide whether plain error has, in fact, occurred. [State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo. banc 2009)]. "All prejudicial error, however, is not plain error, and plain errors are those which are evident, obvious and clear." Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In the absence of evident, obvious, and clear error, we should not proceed further with our plain error review. If, however, we find plain error, we must continue to the second step to consider whether or not a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left uncorrected. Id. at 607-08.
State v. Elliott, 502 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
[5] State v. Clark, 711 S.W.2d 885, 888 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986); State ex rel. George v. Jones, 929 S.W.2d 256, 257 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996). Rule 25.03 provides, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added). Pursuant to the express language of Rule 25.03, subsection (a) applies to disclosures upon the filing of a complaint, and subsection (b) applies to disclosure after the filing of an indictment or information. Rule 25.03(a) does not require the disclosure of witnesses' names and addresses. The State failed to direct the trial court to the distinction between the obligations of the State pursuant to subsection (a) and subsection (b) and failed to argue to the trial court that they did not have an obligation to provide a list of witnesses' names and addresses at the preliminary hearing stage of the proceedings.
Thus, other than the material expressly provided in Rule 25.03(a), "[d]iscovery in criminal cases may be undertaken only after indictment or the filing of an information." George, 929 S.W.2d at 257.
Here, the criminal matter which gave rise to this proceeding was not commenced by indictment. It was before the court for preliminary hearing by the filing of a felony complaint. The parties appeared for a preliminary hearing and, as such, an information had not yet been filed. Accordingly, disclosure of the State's witness list was not yet required under Rule 25.03. The trial court erroneously found the State in violation of Rule 25.03(b)(2), which applies only to disclosures after indictment or information. The State could not have violated a discovery rule with which it was not yet required to comply. Thus, in dismissing the complaint on this basis, the trial court erred.
Having found the trial court's dismissal of the complaint erroneous, we now consider whether the trial court's action rose to the level of reversible plain error. Initially, we find the claimed error facially establishes grounds for believing manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice occurred such as to meet the threshold to review the claim for plain error. Elliot, 502 S.W.3d at 63. As to the two-step plain error process, first, we find plain error has occurred in that the trial court's erroneous reliance on Rule 25.03(b)(2) for its dismissal of the complaint is evident, obvious, and clear error. Id.; see also Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Simmons, 103 S.W.3d 211, 220 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (). At this point, prior to the filing of an indictment or information, the only disclosure required was pursuant to Rule 25.03(a). Second, we find that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will occur if the error is left uncorrected. As agreed by the parties, "manifest injustice" or "miscarriage of justice" means the error was outcome determinative and undermines faith in the criminal justice system. The dismissal of a complaint with prejudice in reliance on an inapplicable rule would suffer both of these error-driven perils.[7] For the reasons stated, we find the trial court plainly erred in dismissing with prejudice the complaint against Jackson-Kuofie. Point is granted.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
All concur.
---------
[1]All rule references to the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial