State ex rel. Peters-Baker v. Round
561 S.W.3d 380
Mo.2018Background
- Tyrone Skinner was convicted and, after direct appeal (public defender Jeannette Wolpink), filed an amended post-conviction motion; Wolpink later left the public defender system and joined the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO).
- Upon Wolpink’s hire, the PAO implemented a documented screening protocol to prevent her involvement or communications on matters in which she previously participated; the protocol was updated as necessary.
- Robert Sauls of the PAO was assigned to represent the state in Skinner’s post-conviction proceeding; Sauls testified he had no contact with Wolpink about the case and knew of no confidential information she retained.
- Skinner moved to disqualify the entire PAO based on Wolpink’s former representation; the circuit judge (Respondent) granted the motion and appointed the Attorney General’s Office; the judge later vacated the order after preliminary writ relief was sought.
- Relator (Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney Jean Peters-Baker) sought a writ of prohibition in this Court challenging the office‑wide disqualification; the Court found the circuit order conflicted with State v. Lemasters and caused irreparable harm, and made the preliminary writ permanent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an individual conflict (Wolpink) was present | Wolpink previously represented Skinner on appeal; disqualification of her participation required | Agreed an individual conflict existed but limited to Wolpink | Court: Wolpink had an individual conflict under Rule 4-1.11/4-1.9 and thus could not participate |
| Whether Wolpink’s conflict imputes to entire PAO under RPC | Relator: Conflict not imputed because PAO is not a "firm" under Rule 4-1.11(b) and screening is effective | Skinner/Respondent: Imputation justified to avoid appearance of impropriety; disqualify entire office | Court: Conflict not imputed under the Rules; appearance‑of‑impropriety test also not met given uncontroverted effective screening; office should not be disqualified |
| Whether the circuit court’s order complied with Lemasters framework | Relator: Circuit court failed to apply Lemasters’ two‑step test and made vague findings | Respondent: Decision was an abundance of caution to prevent inadvertent disclosure | Held: Circuit court failed to analyze imputation properly; vague concerns insufficient under Lemasters |
| Whether writ relief is appropriate despite vacation of order (mootness) | Relator: Case argued and submitted before order vacated; public importance and recurrence justify review | Respondent: Vacatur renders case moot (fact changed) | Held: Case falls under exception for post‑submission mootness (and public‑interest exception); Court exercised discretion and made writ permanent due to irreparable harm to elected official and public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lemasters, 456 S.W.3d 416 (Mo. banc 2015) (framework for when an individual prosecutor’s conflict may be imputed to entire office; role of screening and appearance‑of‑impropriety test)
- State ex rel. Douglas Toyota III, Inc. v. Keeter, 804 S.W.2d 750 (Mo. banc 1991) (extraordinary nature of prohibition and irreparable‑harm requirement)
- State v. Ross, 829 S.W.2d 948 (Mo. banc 1992) (office‑wide disqualification appropriate where no screening and potential access to confidential information existed)
- State ex rel. Griffin v. Smith, 258 S.W.2d 590 (Mo. banc 1953) (disqualification of elected prosecutor implicates public‑office and voters’ delegation of prosecutorial discretion)
- Gurley v. Missouri Bd. of Private Investigator Examiners, 361 S.W.3d 406 (Mo. banc 2012) (public‑interest exception to mootness for issues recurring and evading review)