State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Mark Lee Kilgore
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1154
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Mark Lee Kilgore struck tenant Dennis Vogt in the basement of Kilgore’s house; Vogt was hospitalized with head and other injuries. Kilgore was charged with third‑degree assault.
- Eyewitnesses included the victim Vogt and Kilgore’s brother Jason (who lived in the basement). A third tenant, Robert Swarts, testified for the State about Kilgore’s violent character and Vogt’s meekness.
- Defense later learned Swarts had three felony convictions (assault by DWI causing injury; leaving the scene; theft > $500). The State had not disclosed those convictions before Swarts testified and conceded it had not run a diligent background check.
- Defense moved for acquittal and a new trial based on nondisclosure under Mo. R. Crim. P. 25.03 and due process; both motions were denied at trial. Jury convicted Kilgore of third‑degree assault.
- On appeal Kilgore argued (1) the State violated Rule 25.03 and due process by failing to disclose Swarts’s convictions (prejudice from lost impeachment evidence), and (2) the undisputed evidence established self‑defense entitling him to acquittal as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Kilgore's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to disclose witness convictions under Mo. R. Crim. P. 25.03 / Due Process | State conceded it failed a diligent background search but argued the omitted convictions were not material and did not prejudice the defense. | Nondisclosure of Swarts’s felonies deprived Kilgore of impeachment evidence and violated Rule 25.03 and due process, warranting a new trial. | Court: State’s disclosure failure was inadvertent and violated Rule 25.03, but the omitted impeaching convictions were not material under the circumstances and did not prejudice Kilgore; no new trial. |
| Sufficiency of evidence / self‑defense (judgment of acquittal) | Evidence (Vogt’s and Jason’s testimony and medical records) created a submissible case; conflicts in testimony made self‑defense a jury question. | Kilgore argued undisputed evidence established he acted in self‑defense and thus entitled to acquittal as a matter of law. | Court: Evidence was disputed; jury could reasonably reject Kilgore’s self‑defense claim. Denial of acquittal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merriweather v. State, 294 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. 2009) (prosecution’s suppression of impeachment evidence that is material to credibility can violate due process and warrant reversal).
- Sistrunk v. State, 414 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for reviewing denial of motion for judgment of acquittal; accept all evidence favorable to the State).
- Allison v. State, 845 S.W.2d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (defendant entitled to acquittal on self‑defense only when evidence in favor is undisputed and uncontradicted).