State of Missouri v. Andrew Luke Lemasters
2015 Mo. LEXIS 19
| Mo. | 2015Background
- Lemasters was charged with two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy; the State dismissed one count before trial and the jury convicted on one count. At sentencing the court imposed a single 31‑year term. The written judgment, however, mistakenly recorded convictions on two counts.
- The trial court appointed the Missouri State Public Defender (MSPD); attorney Cheney entered the case for MSPD in August 2012, had limited contact with Lemasters, then left MSPD to join the Newton County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (NCPAO) in September 2012.
- Cheney authored a transfer memo showing frustration with the case and made derogatory comments about Lemasters’ family while at MSPD; she testified she did not participate in or discuss Lemasters’ prosecution after joining NCPAO.
- Lemasters moved to disqualify the entire NCPAO based on Cheney’s prior representation; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing; the case proceeded to jury trial and conviction on a single count.
- On appeal Lemasters argued (1) the entire NCPAO should have been disqualified (or at least the failure to disqualify created an appearance of impropriety); and (2) the written judgment must be corrected because it incorrectly lists two convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cheney’s prior MSPD representation disqualified the entire NCPAO | Cheney’s conflict should be imputed to all prosecutors; office must be disqualified | Cheney was screened; Rule 4‑1.11 does not impute former‑government conflicts to other government attorneys | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying office‑wide disqualification |
| Whether the failure to disqualify created an appearance of impropriety denying a fair trial | Even if not imputed, a reasonable person would perceive impropriety and doubt fairness | Reasonable‑person standard not met; effective screening and lack of facts showing access to confidences dispel appearance | Court affirmed: no appearance of impropriety under reasonable‑person test |
| Whether Rule 4‑1.11 or other RPCs require imputation to a prosecutor’s office | Lemasters argued broader imputation based on fairness precedents (e.g., Ross) | State: Rule 4‑1.11 controls and excludes imputation to separate government attorneys; screening suffices | Court held Rule 4‑1.11 controls; conflicts of a former governmental lawyer are not imputed to other government lawyers in the office |
| Whether the written judgment must be corrected to reflect one conviction | The written judgment erroneously records two convictions contrary to the instruction conference, jury verdict, and sentence | State conceded clerical error; court may correct records nunc pro tunc or under Rule 29.12(c) | Court vacated the second‑count judgment and remanded for correction to reflect only one conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ross, 829 S.W.2d 948 (Mo. banc 1992) (disqualifying prosecutor’s office where private‑firm conflict and lack of insulation created appearance of impropriety)
- State v. Smith, 32 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. banc 2000) (standard of review for trial court disqualification rulings)
- State ex rel. Burns v. Richards, 248 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. banc 2008) (prosecutor who recently defended similar charges presents appearance concerns despite lack of actual prejudice)
- State v. Primm, 347 S.W.3d 66 (Mo. banc 2011) (nunc pro tunc remedy to correct written judgments to reflect what actually occurred)
- In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) (due process requires a fair tribunal)
- Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954) (justice must satisfy the appearance of justice)