State ex rel. Kendrick Tipler, Relator v. The Honorable Michael Gardner, 506 S.W.3d 922

Relator Kendrick Tipler is charged with attempted statutory sodomy based on acts alleged between Sept. and Dec. 2013; his first trial ended in a mistrial and a second trial was scheduled for May 2016.
Tipler filed a motion in limine to exclude propensity/prior-bad-acts evidence; the State sought to admit his prior conviction under the 2014 amendment to Mo. Const. art. I, § 18(c).
The trial court ruled the State could offer Tipler’s prior conviction to corroborate the victim or show propensity under art. I, § 18(c); Tipler’s motions for reconsideration and extraordinary relief in the court of appeals were denied.
Tipler sought a writ of prohibition in the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing § 18(c) cannot be applied to trials for crimes alleged to have occurred before § 18(c)’s effective date (Dec. 4, 2014).
The Supreme Court granted preliminary review to decide whether the amendment applies when alleged conduct predates the amendment, but did not decide whether the trial court correctly applied the rule to Tipler’s facts.
The Court held § 18(c) governs admissibility in prosecutions occurring on or after Dec. 4, 2014, regardless of when the alleged criminal acts occurred; objections to specific applications must be preserved at trial and on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2014 amendment to Mo. Const. art. I, § 18(c) may be applied in trials for crimes committed before Dec. 4, 2014	Tipler: § 18(c) is prospective and therefore applies only when the underlying criminal conduct occurred on or after Dec. 4, 2014	State/Respondent: § 18(c) regulates admissibility in prosecutions and thus applies to trials occurring on or after Dec. 4, 2014 regardless of when the crime occurred	Court held § 18(c) applies to all prosecutions occurring on or after Dec. 4, 2014; it is not limited to conduct occurring after that date

State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. banc 1992) (motion in limine does not preserve an evidentiary ruling for appeal)
State ex rel. Westfall v. Gerhard, 642 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. App. 1982) (extraordinary writ inappropriate for anticipated evidentiary error)
O'Bryan v. Allen, 18 S.W. 892 (Mo. 1891) (statutory changes to evidence rules apply to trials after enactment)
State v. Thompson, 34 S.W. 31 (Mo. 1896) (trial court error reversed; later legislative change to evidence rules applied on retrial)
State v. Thompson, 42 S.W. 949 (Mo. 1897) (legislative changes to rules of evidence are procedural and permissible prospectively for subsequent trials)
State v. Kyle, 65 S.W. 763 (Mo. banc 1901) (procedural rules of evidence bind trials after their enactment)
State ex rel. Scott v. Dircks, 111 S.W. 1 (Mo. banc 1908) (constitutional and statutory provisions generally construed to operate prospectively)
State v. McCoy, 468 S.W.3d 892 (Mo. banc 2015) (distinguishing amendments that govern conduct from those governing prosecutions; § 23 applied only to conduct after amendment)
State v. Robinson, 479 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. banc 2016) (version of constitutional provision in effect at time of alleged crimes governs when provision pertains to conduct)
Stiers v. Dir. of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 611 (Mo. banc 2016) (rules of evidence in effect at time of trial govern)