John Doe, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository, and City of University City
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 816
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- John Doe was arrested on three counts of third-degree assault after an incident in 2008 in which his younger brother allegedly fired an airsoft gun at a pedestrian; police traced the car by its license plate and arrested Doe (the driver).
- Doe pleaded guilty to an amended lesser charge (illegal parking) on a weapons-related count; the three assault charges were nolle prosequi.
- In April 2014 Doe petitioned under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.122 to expunge the arrest records for the three assault counts; MSHP answered and moved to dismiss.
- At the expungement hearing Doe testified he did not shoot the airsoft gun, was unaware his brother had it, and had not participated in two earlier incidents that formed the other assault counts; MSHP presented no evidence at the hearing.
- The trial court found the arrests were based on false information and that, at the time of the expungement action, there was no probable cause to believe Doe committed the assaults, and granted expungement; MSHP appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof/"actual innocence" required for expungement | Doe argued compliance with § 610.122 (false information + no probable cause) suffices; no requirement to produce "new evidence." | MSHP argued expungement requires same "actual innocence" showing as in habeas/malpractice (i.e., new evidence showing no reasonable juror would convict). | Court held expungement requires satisfying statutory elements (false information and no probable cause) by a preponderance; no requirement for "new evidence." |
| Whether arrest was based on false information | Doe: testimony established he did not shoot and police relied on incorrect information tying him to the shooting. | MSHP: contended Doe did not prove the basis for the arrest was false (relied on prior cases denying relief where contrary evidence existed). | Court held substantial evidence supported that police relied on false information (mistakenly identifying Doe as shooter). |
| Whether there was probable cause at time of expungement action | Doe: at hearing evidence showed a reasonably prudent person could not find him guilty of assault. | MSHP: argued Doe’s hearing testimony was insufficient to negate probable cause that he committed assaults. | Court held that under the statutory/expungement standard, no probable cause existed at time of action; Doe met burden. |
| Issue preclusion / waiver of defense | Doe: MSHP did not preserve issue-preclusion defense and thus waived it. | MSHP: argued issue preclusion barred petition. | Court held MSHP failed to raise issue-preclusion in trial court, waived it on appeal, and did not seek plain-error review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adum v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dep’t, 423 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (expungement denial where prosecution witnesses supported probable cause)
- Martinez v. State, 24 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (petitioner must prove actual innocence via statute’s false-information and no-probable-cause requirements)
- Clay v. Dormire, 37 S.W.3d 214 (Mo. banc 2000) (habeas actual innocence standard requires new evidence showing no reasonable juror would convict)
- In re Dyer, 163 S.W.3d 915 (Mo. banc 2005) (false-information requirement: petitioner must show police relied on false info to arrest)
- Coleman v. Missouri State Criminal Records Repository, 268 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (expungement denied where petitioner admitted committing offense)
- Maserang v. Crawford County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 211 S.W.3d 118 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (trial court credibility determinations will be deferred to on appeal)