Trapani v. State, WD 79580

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: Gary D. Witt, Judge
• Citation: 510 S.W.3d 388
• Parties: Vincent M. TRAPANI, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, et al., Respondents.
• Decision Date: 14 February 2017
• Docket Number: WD 79580

510 S.W.3d 388

Vincent M. TRAPANI, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, et al., Respondents.

WD 79580

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: February 14, 2017

Roger M. Gibbons, Osage Beach, MO, for appellant.

Mark A. Richardson, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Three: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

Gary D. Witt, Judge

Vincent M. Trapani ("Trapani") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County denying his Petition for Expungement of Arrest Records ("Expungement Petition"). Trapani's arrest arose out of the shooting of his brother Anthony Trapani ("Anthony")¹ on December 17, 2011. The court heard the case and denied Trapani's request for expungement as the court found that Trapani failed to meet the statutory requirements for expungement with respect to both his arrest for first-degree domestic assault and unlawful use of a weapon. We affirm.

Factual Background

In July of 2014, Trapani filed his Expungement Petition pursuant to section 610.122,² seeking the expungement of all records related to his arrest on December 17, 2011. Trapani's arrest arose out of a shooting incident at the home he shared with his brother Anthony and Anthony's wife, Shay Trapani ("Shay"). On December 17, 2011 at approximately 1:00 a.m., law enforcement officers were called to the residence. At the residence, Anthony was found with a bullet wound to his left hand and abdomen. Anthony had been shot once with the bullet travelling through his left

510 S.W.3d 391

hand and his abdomen and then exiting his back.

During their investigation, officers learned that both Shay and Trapani were present at the time of the shooting. A detective overheard Trapani state several times that the shooting was an accident and tell family members that Anthony accidentally shot himself.

Shay told law enforcement that prior to the incident all three had been at a tavern drinking alcohol. She also stated that she did not see the shooting but overheard part of the conversation between Trapani and Anthony immediately prior to the shooting. Anthony wanted to show Trapani his gun. She heard Anthony tell Trapani that he had removed the magazine from the gun, and Trapani asked Anthony whether the gun would go off if he pulled the trigger. Shay then heard the gun discharge.

Law enforcement spoke to Trapani shortly after their arrival. Trapani smelled of alcohol and his eyes were bloodshot. A search warrant to obtain evidence of Trapani's blood alcohol content was sought and issued. Three hours after the shooting, Trapani had a blood alcohol content of 0.063.

Trapani was arrested for domestic assault in the first degree and unlawful use of a weapon. Trapani was eventually charged with domestic assault in the second degree, but the charge was later dismissed by the State and never went to trial.

The State opposed Trapani's Expungement Petition, arguing that Trapani's arrest was not based on false information and that there was probable cause at the time of the expungement action to believe that Trapani committed the offenses for which he was arrested. The trial court denied Trapani's Expungement Petition. Regarding his arrest for first-degree domestic assault, the court found Trapani failed to prove both that (a) his arrest was based on false information and (b) there was no probable cause at the time of the expungement action to believe that Trapani committed the offense. Regarding his arrest for unlawful use of a weapon, the trial court found that Trapani failed to show that there was no probable cause at the time of the expungement action to believe he committed the offense. This appeal follows. Additional facts will be included in the analysis section below as necessary.

Standard of Review

In reviewing court-tried cases, we affirm the judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Adum v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dep't , 423 S.W.3d 327, 328 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). The trial court's application of statutory requirements is a question of law rather than fact; therefore, we review the trial court's application of statutory requirements de novo. Sutton v. Municipal Court Division, Des Peres , 462 S.W.3d 446, 448–49 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Additionally, the credibility of the witnesses is for the determination of the trial court, which is free to believe none, part, or all of the testimony. Maserang v. Crawford County Sheriff's Dep't , 211 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). We defer to the trial court's determination of the witnesses' credibility. Id.

Doe v. Mo. State Hwy. Patrol Criminal Records Repository , 474 S.W.3d 171, 174 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).

Analysis

Point One

In Point One on appeal, Trapani argues the trial court erred in denying his Expungement

510 S.W.3d 392

Petition for his arrest for domestic assault in the first degree because the trial court erroneously applied the law because the evidence established that (a) Trapani's arrest for domestic assault in the first degree was based on false information; (b) there was not probable cause at the time of the expungement action to believe that he committed the offense of domestic assault in the first degree; and (c) Trapani was innocent of the offense.

Section 610.122 provides, in relevant part, that a record of arrest may be expunged if the following criteria are satisfied:

1. Notwithstanding other provisions of law to the contrary, any record of arrest recorded pursuant to section 43.503 may be expunged if:

(1) The court determines that the arrest was based on false information and the following conditions exist: (emphasis added)

(a) There is no probable cause, at the time of the action to expunge, to believe the individual committed the offense;

(b) No charges will be pursued as a result of the arrest; and

(c) The subject of the arrest did not receive a suspended imposition of sentence for the offense for which the arrest was made or for any offense related to the arrest;

2. A record of arrest shall only be eligible for expungement under this section if:

(1) The subject of the arrest has no prior or subsequent misdemeanor or felony convictions; and

(2) No civil action is pending relating to the arrest or the records sought to be expunged.

(emphasis added); see also In re Dyer , 163 S.W.3d 915, 918 (Mo. banc 2005) ; Coleman v. Mo. State Criminal Records Repository , 268 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008).

Here, Trapani only challenges the trial court's findings that Trapani's arrest was not based on false information and there existed probable cause to believe he committed the offense at the time of the expungement hearing. Trapani does not challenge the trial court's findings that the remaining statutory factors were satisfied.

We will first consider whether Trapani's arrest was based on "false information." "In order for a petitioner to establish that his arrest was based on false information, the petitioner must prove that some or all of the information that the police relied on to arrest him was false." Doe , 474 S.W.3d at 176 (citing In re Dyer , 163 S.W.3d at 918–19 ). "False" is not defined by statute so, in order to determine legislative intent, we construe words in their plain, ordinary, and usual sense, usually derived from the dictionary. Martinez v. State , 24 S.W.3d 10, 16 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). Black's Law Dictionary defines "False" as follows: "1. Untrue < a false statement>. 2. Deceitful; lying < a false witness>. 3. Not genuine; inauthentic < false coinage>. • What is false can be so by intent, by accident, or by mistake. 4. Wrong; erroneous < false step>." False , BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014). As interpreted by our Supreme Court,

[t]o establish that the arrest was based on "false information" the petitioner in most cases must prove that the alleged victim—who knew the petitioner and on whose accusation his arrest was based—had falsely accused the petitioner. Martinez v. State , 24 S.W.3d 10, 20 (Mo.App.[E.D.]2000). In all cases, the petitioner must prove that some or all of the information upon which the police relied to arrest the petitioner is simply a lie.

In re Dyer , 163 S.W.3d at 918–919. "False information" under this statute has also

510 S.W.3d 393

been held to "include situations where an officer relies on a mistaken belief that a criminal law applies to conduct that is unquestionably not illegal." Doe v. St. Louis Cty. Police Dep't , 505 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).

In the case at bar, there is no accuser as such but rather an investigation of the facts by law enforcement that led law...