363 S.W.3d 71
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Relator sought writ of prohibition to stop Judge Prokes from enforcing an order excluding all evidence in Buchli case.
- Trial court held state discovery violations were willful and imposed severe sanctions under Rule 25.18, excluding all evidence.
- State conceded multiple violations of the June 2, 2010 discovery order and produced a lengthy, contested show-cause hearing record.
- Trial court concluded Buchli’s right to a fair trial would be compromised absent drastic sanctions and found bad faith by the State.
- This Court granted a preliminary writ; ultimately, the Court quashed the preliminary writ and denied permanent relief, holding no abuse of discretion.
- Case remanded to determine if any prejudice remains and whether sanctions were appropriately tailored to remedy violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether writ of prohibition lies for discovery violations | State argues trial court abused discretion | Buchli contends sanctions excessive; prejudice not shown | No abuse; writ denied |
| Whether the discovery violations supported the sanctions | State violated order; sanctions appropriate | Record insufficient to prove prejudice; remedy improper | Violations found; sanctions upheld in light of record |
| Whether exclusion of all State evidence was appropriate | State can use other less drastic remedies | Severe misconduct justified extreme sanction | Sanction upheld; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglim v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 832 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. banc 1992) (abuse test: serious, arbitrary, or shocking to sense of justice)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (deference to trial court factual findings in discovery rulings)
- State ex rel. Pratte, 298 S.W.3d 870 (Mo. banc 2009) (establishes writ of prohibition standards)
- State v. Wells, 639 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. banc 1982) (discovery rules serve to expedite trials; prejudice analysis)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988) (dismissal premised on prejudice; protection against prejudice required)