State v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 24 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 100246.,ED 100246. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Landon Matthew THOMAS, Respondent. |
434 S.W.3d 524
STATE of Missouri, Appellant,
v.
Landon Matthew THOMAS, Respondent.
No. ED 100246.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Three.
June 24, 2014.
[434 S.W.3d 525]
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Gabriel Etter Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant.
Raphael Odell Morris, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
MARY K. HOFF, Presiding Judge.
The State appeals from the denial of its motion to set aside the ruling disposing of
[434 S.W.3d 526]
Landon Matthew Thomas's (Defendant) 1 charges of two counts of felony stealing in violation of Section 570.030.1, RSMo 2000, 2 without conducting a trial and, over the State's objection, submitting the case solely on a police report and precluding the State from presenting any evidence. We reverse and remand.
Defendant was charged with two counts of felony stealing over $500, in violation of Section 570.030, involving two incidents occurring in March 2012. Count I of the indictment alleged that on March 24, 2012, Defendant, along with his co-defendant, Byron Parker Aston (Aston), stole grease of a value of at least $500 from McGurk's Bar and Grill. Defendant and Aston did so without the consent of McGurk's and with the purpose to deprive it thereof. The initial felony complaint listed Defendant and Aston as co-defendants. A grand jury then indicted Defendant and Aston on Count I. Count II of the indictment alleged that Defendant stole grease of a value of at least $500 from Tucker's Restaurant without its consent and with the purpose to deprive it thereof.
On April 23, 2013, Defendant and Aston appeared before the trial court. Counsel for Aston made an oral motion to sever his case from Defendant's because Aston was waiving his right to a jury trial, opting instead to have a bench trial, but Defendant still requested a jury trial. The trial court granted the motion and severed Aston's case from Defendant's.
The trial court then asked for the police report regarding the felony stealing incident.3 After reading the police report, the court voiced concern about the value of the stolen grease. The court asked the State about the value, and the State responded that the grease was valuable to the restaurant and the company that picks it up: the grease, about 2,000 pounds, was worth over $800, although the value of the grease was not indicated in the police report. The State explained that its reason for objecting to submitting the case on the police report was that those reports were only summaries. The State informed the court that it had endorsed witnesses, but the trial court stated that if it was going by the police report, the verdict was not guilty because the report did not prove value. The State again objected to submission of the case on the police report and asserted that it had the right to present evidence, regardless of whether it was a bench or jury trial. The State further argued that it had witnesses who would come in and attest to the value, and that these witnesses had been endorsed. The State argued that “the defense attorney had a right to depose them if he wanted to.” The trial court then repeated that the verdict as to Aston was not guilty. The State then argued that the police report actually did duly assert the value of the stolen grease because the St. Louis Police Department's expert on grease theft could lay the foundation as to the value of the grease. The trial court repeated that it did not find that the police report established
[434 S.W.3d 527]
the value of the grease because there were no “witnesses in the police report testifying or giving information, nor [was there] the police officer saying I am an experienced grease cop, and in my experience the value is ... $800.”
The State asked for a moment to confer with co-counsel, but the trial court replied, “this case is over ... I've rendered my verdict in this case.”
Immediately following the not-guilty disposition in Aston's case, Defendant's counsel informed the court that Defendant also wanted to waive a jury trial and submit the case on the police report alone. Immediately, the State informed the court that it had an officer waiting to testify at the bench trial, but the court stated that Defendant also wanted to submit the case on the police report. The State repeated its objection to submitting the case on the police report, stating that it would be prejudiced by any such submission, and by allowing defendants to dictate the State's evidence the court was effectively precluding the State from meeting its burden of proof:
[State]: Because the State cannot meet its burden. The State is prejudiced—if the defense could submit every case on the record in this circuit, the case—the State would never meet its burden. Because the police report is just a summary.
The police report in and of itself does not allow the State to meet its burden. And that is why we have trials, whether a jury or bench trial.
Your honor, if these defendants are allowed to submit their case on the record, you would make the same ruling for the same reasons.... And every defendant in this jurisdiction would walk if they were allowed to submit every case on the record.
THE COURT: No, that's not true. That's not true at all. I've had cases submitted on the police report where I've found guilt.... That's a mischaracterization of submitting on the police report.
The trial court then swore in Defendant and explained to him the rights associated with a jury trial. Defendant stated that he understood those rights and was waiving a jury trial. The State then requested leave to research the issue of submission of cases on the police report because it was “a novel issue, at least in this jurisdiction, it's not common for cases to be submitted on the record.” The trial court denied the State's request, overruled the State's objection to submission on the police report, and took the case on the record. Again, the trial court found that the police report did not sufficiently establish the requisite value element. The trial court further found that the police report did not establish that Defendant had the requisite intent. The trial court then found Defendant “not guilty as charged.”
On April 26, 2013, the State filed a motion to set aside the trial court's ruling in allowing Defendant to submit his case solely on the police report. The State argued that because the trial court did not receive evidence, jeopardy did not attach to either defendant. As such, the State requested the opportunity to retry the defendants, including the opportunity to present evidence of their guilt. Following a hearing held off the record, the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Metzinger
...547.200.2. In a court-tried case, jeopardy attaches when the court begins to hear evidence on the issue of guilt. State v. Thomas, 434 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Mo.App.E.D.2014). In a jury trial, jeopardy attaches when the jury is impaneled and sworn. State v. Fassero, 256 S.W.3d 109, 114 (Mo. banc ......
-
State Ex Rel Patrick J. O'Basuyi v. Vincent
... 434 S.W.3d 517 STATE ex rel Patrick J. O'BASUYI, Relator, v. The Honorable David Lee VINCENT, III, Respondent. No. SC93652. Supreme Court of Missouri. June 24, 2014 ... Steven W. Koslovsky, Steve Koslovsky LLC, St. Louis, for Relator. [434 S.W.3d 518] R. Thomas Avery, Robert D. Blitz, Jason K. Turk, Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch LC, St. Louis, for TriStar. En Banc. LAURA DENVIR STITH, Judge. Relator Patrick O'Basuyi, the plaintiff in the action below, seeks a writ of prohibition preventing the trial court from simultaneously trying to a jury ... ...
-
State v. Aston
...and ANGELA TURNER QUIGLESS, JJ., concur.--------Notes: 1. The State is simultaneously appealing a companion case, State v. Thomas, 434 S.W.3d 524, 2014 WL 2853547 (ED 100246). For ease of discussion and to present a more complete picture of the underlying proceedings, both cases are referre......