State of Missouri v. Chadwick Leland Walter
479 S.W.3d 118
Mo.2016Background
- On Aug. 4–5, 2011, Walter and his girlfriend purchased pseudoephedrine, lithium batteries, and fuel; police later executed a warrant and found an active meth lab at Walter’s residence; Walter was charged with attempted manufacture of methamphetamine and maintaining a public nuisance.
- During the State’s closing, a slideshow was shown to the jury; the final slide displayed Walter’s booking photo (color, reddish-orange top) with the word “GUILTY” superimposed in large red block letters across his face.
- Defense counsel and the trial court did not see the slide during closing (courtroom configuration); defense first raised the objection after the jury returned a guilty verdict and moved for a new trial.
- Trial court denied the new-trial motion; on appeal the claim was reviewed for plain error because no contemporaneous objection was made.
- The majority held the altered photograph was improperly altered evidence (equivalent to introducing unadmitted evidence), prejudicial, and warranted vacation of convictions and remand for a new trial.
- Two dissenting justices agreed the slide was improper but would not reverse: one argued the appellate court applied the wrong standard (trial-court-abuse-of-discretion review under Rule 29.12(b)); the other found no manifest injustice given the weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Walter's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the State’s use of an altered booking photo in closing improper? | The altered photo ("GUILTY" stamped) was unadmitted, inflammatory, and beyond permissible argument. | The underlying unaltered photo was admitted; using it in a slideshow and marking it didn’t change admissibility. | Majority: improper — the modification produced unadmitted evidence and was error. |
| Did the error prejudice Walter so as to require a new trial? | The altered image undermined presumption of innocence and likely affected jury deliberations; not harmless given disputed evidence. | Any error was harmless because evidence of guilt was overwhelming. | Majority: prejudice shown; new trial required. Dissent: no manifest injustice; would affirm. |
| Is the claim preserved or subject to plain-error review? | Walter raised the claim in a motion for new trial; trial court and defense did not see slide during closing. | State notes no contemporaneous objection; claim is unpreserved. | Majority: unpreserved → plain-error review (and reversal). Dissent (Wilson): argues the proper preserved claim is trial-court denial of Rule 29.12(b) relief and should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. |
| What standard should govern appellate review of the motion-for-new-trial plain-error claim? | N/A (majority applies Rule 30.20 plain-error in appellate review). | N/A (state agreed plain-error review). | Disagreement: Majority applies plain-error; one dissent says abuse-of-discretion is correct for the specific claim raised under Rule 29.12(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. banc 2010) (limits on prosecutor argument; must not misrepresent evidence)
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (appearance in identifiable restraints/prison garb can undermine presumption of innocence)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (forcing defendant to wear prison clothing impairs presumption of innocence)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutor’s duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict)
- Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) (presumption of innocence foundational to criminal law)
- State v. Carter, 415 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. banc 2013) (failure to object to closing argument preserves only plain-error review)
- State v. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. banc 2003) (plain error in closing warrants reversal only if it had a decisive effect and caused manifest injustice)