State v. St. John, No. WD 64890 (Mo. App. 5/25/2006)
Decision Date | 25 May 2006 |
Docket Number | No. WD 64890,WD 64890 |
Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. BRADLEY E. ST. JOHN, Appellant. |
Court | Court 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.
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.
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:
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 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?
. . . .
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:
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:
To continue reading
Request your trial