STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. DAN PATTERSON, Relator v. THE HONORABLE CHARLES D. CURLESS, SD37113

Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson (Relator) was disqualified, along with the entire Greene County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO), from prosecuting State v. Aaron Klusmeyer, after the trial court granted Klusmeyer’s unverified motion alleging conflicts.
Klusmeyer’s motion contained various conflict-of-interest allegations but was unverified; no facts were stipulated and no witness testimony was presented at the disqualification hearing.
The hearing consisted solely of counsel argument; one exhibit was marked by the PAO during argument but was not offered or received into evidence.
Judge Charles D. Curless granted the motion “out of an abundance of caution” and entered an order disqualifying Patterson and the entire PAO on April 6, 2021.
Patterson sought a writ of prohibition from the Missouri Court of Appeals arguing there was no evidence to support disqualification; this Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and issued a permanent writ vacating and prohibiting enforcement of the disqualification order.

Issue	Patterson's Argument	Curless's/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the PAO/relator could be disqualified without evidence	No—motion allegations and counsel argument are not evidence; disqualification requires proof	The court acted permissibly based on Klusmeyer’s allegations and cautionary concerns	Held for Patterson: no evidence supported disqualification; abuse of discretion
Whether disqualifying an entire prosecuting office is justified	Such disqualification requires an actual conflict imputed to the whole office under RPC or an appearance-of-impropriety showing	Disqualification was warranted as a precaution given alleged conflicts	Held for Patterson: office-wide disqualification improper absent evidentiary showing
Whether writ of prohibition is appropriate remedy	Prohibition warranted to prevent irreparable harm from office-wide disqualification when exercised without jurisdiction or evidence	Trial court’s order should stand pending ordinary appellate review	Held for Patterson: extraordinary writ issued; order vacated and enforcement barred

State ex rel. Douglas Toyota III, Inc. v. Keeter, 804 S.W.2d 750 (Mo. banc 1991) (writ of prohibition is extraordinary remedy used sparingly to prevent action without or in excess of jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Peters-Baker v. Round, 561 S.W.3d 380 (Mo. banc 2018) (office-wide disqualification causes irreparable harm and requires actual conflict shown; disqualification reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Lemasters, 456 S.W.3d 416 (Mo. banc 2015) (discusses imputation of conflicts and standards for disqualifying an entire prosecutor’s office)
State v. Williams, 643 S.W.2d 641 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982) (trial court may not disqualify prosecutor absent allegations or evidence of statutory disqualification)
State v. Banks, 457 S.W.3d 898 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (allegations in a motion are not self-proving; need evidence)
State v. Smith, 996 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999) (counsel’s bare assertions are not evidence)