March v. Midwest St. Louis, L.L.C.
2014 Mo. LEXIS 2
Mo.2014Background
- Plaintiff Phillip March was stabbed in early morning hours after stopping at Midwest St. Louis’s convenience store; March claims the stabbing occurred by a dumpster on Midwest’s property, Midwest contends it occurred in an alley off its property.
- Evidence at trial included conflicting testimony from three responding officers about locations of blood, eight scene photographs, and expert testimony from March’s blood‑spatter analyst (who said the evidence was insufficient to opine) and Midwest’s reconstructionist, Louis Akin (who testified the stabbing occurred in the alley).
- On direct examination, Akin was asked whether he was “retained by the U.S. Government” on any major investigation; he answered that he had “just finished reconstructing the Fort Hood shooting by Major Malik Hasan.”
- After a jury verdict for Midwest, March moved for a new trial claiming Akin perjured himself about his Fort Hood role; post‑trial evidence included a removed website post by Akin saying he had been chosen as a defense expert for Major Hasan.
- The trial court granted a new trial, finding Akin willfully testified falsely about being retained by the U.S. government and that the false testimony was material such that it likely occasioned an improper verdict.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding intentional false testimony that was material to the jury’s verdict; the Court declined to reach the alternative newly‑discovered evidence ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Akin committed perjury by testifying he was retained by the U.S. Government in the Fort Hood investigation | Akin’s statement was false and willful; post‑trial website post shows he was retained by Hasan’s defense, not the government | Akin’s answer was not false because he was paid with federal funds via III Corps/Fort Hood and question didn’t ask who hired him | Court: Akin’s testimony was false and the trial court reasonably found it willful and deliberate |
| Whether the false testimony was material and occasioned an improper verdict | The lie about government retention bolstered Akin’s credibility/credentials, and his opinion was essential given conflicting evidence | The jury heard other qualifications; the misstatement was immaterial to Akin’s opinion about location | Court: The false testimony was material because Akin’s credentials were pivotal to the jury accepting his opinion; new trial properly granted |
| Whether a perjury conviction (or witness death) is required before granting a new trial for perjured testimony | March: Not required; trial court may grant new trial if it finds perjury and an improper verdict resulted | Midwest: Cites older precedent suggesting conviction or death required | Court: Overrules that limited reading of Sly; conviction/death not required — trial court may grant new trial if record shows perjury and improper verdict |
| Whether alternative ground (newly discovered evidence) should be analyzed | March: Post‑trial website post was newly discovered evidence supporting perjury claim | Midwest: Argues evidence insufficient as newly discovered evidence | Court: Did not decide because ruling on perjury ground was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Hancock v. Shook, 100 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. banc 2003) (standard reviewing grant of new trial for perjury: abuse of discretion and requirement that perjury occasioned an improper verdict)
- Loveless v. Locke Distributing Co., 313 S.W.2d 24 (Mo. 1958) (discussing materiality and reluctance to grant new trial absent decisive after‑trial facts)
- Donati v. Gualdoni, 216 S.W.2d 519 (Mo. 1948) (deference to trial court credibility findings on perjury claims)
- Sly v. Union Depot Ry. Co., 36 S.W. 235 (Mo. 1896) (historical reference to perjury convictions; Court explains later decisions do not require conviction/death)
- United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1991) (example where false testimony by a central witness required new trial because it was central to the government’s case)