State v. St. John, No. WD 64890 (Mo. App. 5/25/2006)

Decision Date25 May 2006
Docket NumberNo. WD 64890,WD 64890
PartiesSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. BRADLEY E. ST. JOHN, Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, The Honorable Ann Mesle, Judge.

Before Breckenridge, P.J., and Howard and Holliger, JJ.

VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge.

Bradley E. St. John ("St. John") appeals from a conviction following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County for one count of domestic assault in the first degree in violation of section 565.072.1 St. John argues two points on appeal. In Point I, St. John argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a prior and persistent domestic violence offender to life imprisonment without probation or parole under section 565.063, because the prior convictions used to prove St. John was a prior and persistent domestic violence offender did not meet the statutory definition of "domestic assault offenses." In Point II, St. John argues the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled St. John's motion to strike venireperson Maria Murphy ("Murphy") for cause, because Murphy indicated that she would be unable to find St. John not guilty if defense counsel did nothing, even if the State failed to prove St. John guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Background

St. John's girlfriend, Susan Craig, suffered a broken neck while St. John was the only other person in an apartment with her and later died of complications from the injury. St. John was charged by indictment with one count of domestic assault in the first degree in violation of section 565.072, or in the alternative, one count of murder in the second degree in violation of section 565.021. The State charged St. John as a prior and persistent offender, and as a prior and persistent domestic violence offender. In support of the prior and persistent domestic violence offender allegation, the State alleged that St. John had two prior felony convictions in Illinois for domestic battery. Prior to trial, the State admitted evidence of St. John's domestic battery convictions in Illinois over St. John's continuing objection, and found St. John to be a prior and persistent offender and a prior and persistent domestic violence offender.

During voir dire, the following exchange occurred between the prosecutor and Murphy:

[PROSECUTOR]: We will start right here with number 10, Ms. Murphy. You have taken criminal justice classes or you have a degree in criminal justice?

[MURPHY]: I have a degree.

[PROSECUTOR]: Basically I will ask this question. At the end of this case, just like the Judge did when we first start[ed] off she read the instructions that is [sic] the law of the State of Missouri. At the conclusion she's going to read more instructions and that's going to constitute the law in the State of Missouri that pertains to this case. My question is basically this: When she reads you those instructions on the law, if it conflicts with something you learned in criminal justice class would you be able to set aside what you learned and decide this case based solely upon what you hear as the Judge tells you the law is?

[MURPHY]: Yes.

Later, during voir dire, the following exchange occurred between St. John's defense counsel and Murphy:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Is there anybody that feels they could not follow the law and hold off on making a decision until you have heard everything in this case? I see no hands.

This continues with what we were talking about just a minute ago. That it's your duty and you are asked to sit here and to presume that Mr. St. John is innocent and you are required to do that up until the case is given to you to deliberate on and only then could you make a decision. The reason that I bring that up and it's something that [the prosecutor] has touched on already is because in our system, the defendant always goes second. So just like today, I had to wait until [the prosecutor] was done with his questions before I could ask questions. It's like that all the way through from start to finish. My concern is that you are going to make a decision on this case before you have ever even heard our argument. So is there anybody here that feels that they could not follow that rule of law and continue with the presumption of innocence and not make a decision until the case is given to you as a juror for deliberation. I see no hands.

The next question that I have is, is there anybody here that feels like they would base their decision on this case simply on the number of witnesses that would be presented by one side or the other? I will let you think about that for a second and let me give you an example. If you are chosen as a juror, you sit here for trial and the State presented 10 witnesses and we only presented 2 witnesses. Is there anybody just based on the number of witnesses, would decide whether Mr. St. John is guilty or innocent? I see no hands. Oh, I do.

[MURPHY]: I have a question.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You are juror number 10?

[MURPHY]: Yes. Does that mean that you are doing it only on the number or I mean if you say you have 10 people up there saying that he did it and 2 people that are saying he didn't, obviously —

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Fair question, no, and let me be clear. I am just talking about the number of people, the number of people that are presented. If the State brought up 10 witnesses and they testified — I am not talking about what they testified to, just brought them up and say we didn't bring up any witnesses. Would you tend, would you want to vote guilty just because the State brought all the witnesses? I see no hands. And just to take this one step further. Is there anybody that feels like not only did we not present any witnesses, the State presented their witnesses, we didn't present any but then I also didn't ask a single question. Is there anybody here then that would make their decision as to whether Mr. St. John is guilty or innocent just based on that fact?

Murphy did not respond to this inquiry. After answering questions from other jurors, the following exchange took place:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yeah, the question is and just — I want to try to be clear for everybody. If we didn't bring any witnesses, the State brought all the witnesses and those witnesses testified and what they said, what they testified to or whatever the evidence was that the State brought. At the end of the day, the State didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, could you vote not guilty?

. . . .

[MURPHY]: I think that that would be a hard thing for anybody to do. If you didn't ask anybody, any of the witnesses questions, I personally would think you don't want to ask them questions because you don't want them, you don't want to give them a chance to bring something up that would not be admissible otherwise.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: All right. So if I hear you correctly then, what you are saying is even if what the State brought in as their evidence in your mind didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt the case, the fact that I didn't ask any questions would lead you to believe that maybe there was something to hide?

[MURPHY]: Yes.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And you would have trouble voting not guilty?

[MURPHY]: Yes.

Following this exchange, the defense counsel asked if any of the jurors were confused, and Murphy raised her hand. The following exchange then took place:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Let me try one more time and then Ms. Murphy is going to try. I am certainly not trying to make light of this because this is very important. Mr. St. John sits here with his life in the balance.

[MURPHY]: Right.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And the situation has become a little comical because I seem to be stammering over my words but the issue is not and here's the situation. The state of the law is that the State of Missouri, [the prosecutor], has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, okay? And I am giving you a hypothetical to see if everybody feels like they can really apply that law, if they can really put the State to proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The hypothetical is this. The State produces witnesses in the trial, the witnesses testify. I have no questions, I don't stand up one time. We don't present anybody as witnesses on our side of the case. And after you have listened to all the evidence, the evidence does not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, okay? That determination is being made for you in this hypothetical. Does not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In that situation, is there anybody here who could not vote not guilty? Okay. Now, because it got confused and I am not seeing any hands now and based on our conversation earlier I would expect to have seen a few of them including Ms. Murphy?

[MURPHY]: I already raised my hand so —

The following exchange about Murphy between the defense counsel, the prosecutor and the trial judge took place out of the presence and hearing of the jury during the strikes for cause:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I believe it was when we were discussing the burden of proof which we labored over for a while and I think I was very clear about it several times although a different juror disagreed with that but she finally did come around eventually when everybody came around, juror number 10's response did not change and that was that she would need to hear something from us and if she didn't, that that would weigh in her mind that we were trying to hide something from her.

THE COURT: She did say that and I want you to respond to it. My problem was they all had finally decided that you were going to be a really bad lawyer if you didn't ask any questions and I mean — and I understand where you are coming from but I do sit there and say I have never heard you take the position that you are not going to ask questions. I mean, you know, you are going to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT