State of Missouri ex rel. Willis McCree, Relator v. The Honorable Wesley Dalton
573 S.W.3d 44
| Mo. | 2019Background
- McCree was stopped after his vehicle broke down; deputy smelled alcohol, observed impairment, and McCree admitted drinking. He refused field sobriety and breath tests; a warrant produced two blood samples at .052% and .039% BAC.
- State charged McCree with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and driving while revoked and set the matter for jury trial.
- McCree moved to dismiss under § 577.037.2, arguing BAC < .08% mandates dismissal unless the State proves an exception; a hearing was held but neither side presented evidence and the court overruled the motion.
- McCree sought mandamus relief to compel dismissal with prejudice; the court of appeals denied relief, this Court issued a preliminary writ, and the matter returned for permanent relief consideration.
- The Supreme Court (plurality) held § 577.037.2 does not require a pretrial hearing or pretrial determination and Rule 24.04(b) allows the circuit court discretion to defer hearing/ruling until trial; because no clear, unequivocal right to dismissal was shown, mandamus was inappropriate and the preliminary writ was quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McCree) | Defendant's Argument (State/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 577.037.2 requires pretrial dismissal when chemical analysis < .08% and no evidence of an exception is presented at a pretrial hearing | § 577.037.2 mandates dismissal with prejudice unless the State produces evidence of one of three exceptions; absent any State evidence at the hearing, dismissal was required | The statute specifies what evidence avoids dismissal but not when it must be presented; circuit court may defer hearing or ruling under Rule 24.04(b) and was within its discretion to do so | Held: No statutory right to a pretrial determination; court may defer ruling; mandamus denied/quashed |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel dismissal rather than allowing appellate review | McCree: He has a clear, unequivocal right to dismissal under the statute; mandamus is proper to enforce that right now | State: Relief via appeal is adequate; mandamus improperly seeks to control discretionary/interlocutory matters | Held: Mandamus inappropriate because no clear right shown and appeal provides adequate relief |
| Whether prior case law (Mignone) requires a pretrial production/persuasion burden on the State | McCree: Mignone supports that the court must weigh evidence and the State bears the burden to produce evidence pretrial to avoid dismissal | State: Mignone did not establish a mandatory pretrial hearing requirement; the court retains discretion to defer | Held: Mignone distinguishable; it does not create a statutory timing requirement that overrides Rule 24.04 discretion |
| Whether an overruled pretrial motion (interlocutory order) prevents later reconsideration or appellate review | McCree: Overruling without evidence deprived him of statutory right and final relief | State: An interlocutory ruling is within court control and may be reconsidered; appeal is available after final judgment | Held: Overruling is interlocutory, court may revisit, and appeal provides remedy; mandamus not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Hewitt v. Kerr, 461 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2015) (standard for mandamus requires showing a clear, unequivocal right)
- Furlong Cos., Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. banc 2006) (elements for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. banc 2006) (mandamus should not control exercise of judicial discretion)
- State ex rel. Kauble v. Hartenbach, 216 S.W.3d 158 (Mo. banc 2007) (mandamus inappropriate where appeal provides remedy)
- Nicholson v. Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. App. 2015) (interlocutory orders remain under court control and may be reconsidered)
- Woods v. Juvenile Shoe Corp. of Am., 361 S.W.2d 694 (Mo. 1962) (interlocutory rulings are within trial court's control)
- State v. Mignone, 411 S.W.3d 361 (Mo. App. 2013) (interpreted predecessor statute to require the court to weigh evidence and implied a production/persuasion burden on the State)