State of Missouri v. Amanda N. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263

Background

Amanda Bazell was convicted of two burglaries and four counts of stealing after breaking into two homes and taking multiple items, including two firearms and rings valued over $8,000. One burglary count was later dismissed.
The State charged three stealing counts as class C felonies (two firearms and the rings) and one as a misdemeanor (other personal property); jury convicted on all stealing counts and one burglary.
Trial court sentenced Bazell to concurrent 12-year terms for burglary and felony stealing counts and one year for the misdemeanor stealing count.
On appeal, Bazell argued (1) the two felony stealing convictions for the two firearms (arising from the same burglary) violated double jeopardy/multiple punishment and (2) the trial court should have granted a mistrial when a detective testified about composing a photo lineup using jail and Department of Revenue photos.
The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed whether §570.030.3 (felony enhancement) applies and whether the lineup testimony constituted inadmissible evidence of other crimes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §570.030.3 felony enhancement applies to Bazell's stealing convictions for firearms	The State: §570.030.3 makes stealing firearms a class C felony, permitting separate felony convictions for each firearm	Bazell: Enhancement does not apply because the enhancement operates only where value is an element; stealing's definition lacks value as an element, so convictions should be misdemeanors; separate felony punishments are improper	Held: §570.030.3 applies only to offenses “in which the value of the property or services is an element.” Stealing’s definition lacks value as an element, so the firearms counts cannot be enhanced and must be misdemeanors; the two felony convictions for firearms are reversed and remanded
Whether multiple punishments for two firearms taken in one burglary violate double jeopardy	State: statutory structure permits felony punishments for firearms theft	Bazell: Multiple felony punishments for theft of two firearms in same burglary violate double jeopardy	Court declined to resolve double jeopardy claim on the merits because statutory interpretation (that enhancement does not apply) resolved the case; thus no need to reach constitutional question
Whether detective’s testimony that he used jail photos to assemble photo lineups was inadmissible evidence of other crimes requiring mistrial	State: testimony merely explained lineup composition and identification procedure; not a clear link that defendant had prior crimes	Bazell: Mention that photos were drawn from jail system implied prior arrests/other crimes and prejudiced jury; mistrial required	Held: No abuse of discretion. Testimony indicated defendant’s photo came from Department of Revenue; detective only used jail system to find look-alikes, did not establish defendant’s photo was a jail photo or that she committed other crimes; mistrial properly denied

Key Cases Cited

Mallow v. State, 439 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. banc 2014) (double jeopardy protects against successive prosecution and multiple punishments)
State v. Liberty, 370 S.W.3d 537 (Mo. banc 2012) (double jeopardy plain-error review where trial court lacked power to convict)
State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. banc 1992) (cumulative punishments require legislative intent; look to unit of prosecution)
State ex rel. Valentine v. Orr, 366 S.W.3d 534 (Mo. banc 2012) (use plain statutory meaning for interpretation)
Goerlitz v. City of Maryville, 333 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. banc 2011) (do not employ canons when statutory language is clear)
State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. banc 2012) (evidence of other crimes admissible only if it tends to establish elements like identity, intent, common plan)
State v. Hornbuckle, 769 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. banc 1989) (testimony that definitely associates defendant with other crimes is inadmissible)
State v. Wright, 978 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. App. 1998) (implication a photo was taken by police does not necessarily infer prior crimes)
State v. Blurton, 484 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. banc 2016) (mistrial is drastic; trial court’s denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)