State of Missouri v. Levi Scott Elliott
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1024
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On March 24, 2012, 15‑year‑old Levi Elliott was left home with his 12‑year‑old half‑sister Sierra; Sierra was found with a fatal .22 caliber gunshot wound and died the next day. Levi was not at the house when parents returned; the family pickup was missing.
- Surveillance placed Levi at a Walmart about an hour after the shooting; he gave inconsistent statements and told a story about an unknown intruder and a car chase. He was later taken into custody. No forced entry or theft was found. A Ruger .22 was consistent with the projectile.
- Crime‑scene analyst Jason Trammell testified that Sierra’s blood was on a nightstand near the shooter’s likely position; he testified the blood appeared passive rather than back‑spatter and related that a paramedic told him the drop resulted from an IV attempt.
- Levi was charged with second‑degree murder, armed criminal action, and tampering with a motor vehicle; the State entered a nolle prosequi in Greene County and refiled the same day in Polk County. Levi was tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to consecutive terms (20, 5, and 5 years).
- On appeal Levi raised two claims: (1) trial court should have sua sponte prevented the State’s dismissal/refiling because it denied him potential eligibility for "dual jurisdiction" under §211.073; (2) the court erred by overruling hearsay objections to Trammell’s testimony about the paramedic’s statement. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have sua sponte blocked the State’s nolle prosequi and refiling because the dismissal foreclosed Levi’s opportunity for dual‑jurisdiction sentencing under §211.073 | Levi: the dismissal/refiling delayed prosecution so he aged out of eligibility for dual jurisdiction; court should have prevented the nolle prosequi to protect that right | State: prosecutor has broad statutory discretion to dismiss and refile charges; dismissal without prejudice is not subject to court approval except limits like double jeopardy or statutes of limitation | Court: refused plain‑error review; held prosecutor’s broad discretion to nolle and refile is not limited by §211.073 under these facts and trial court had no duty to sua sponte block dismissal; Point One denied |
| Whether admission of Trammell’s testimony recounting a paramedic’s out‑of‑court statement was reversible hearsay error | Levi: Trammell’s testimony about the paramedic was hearsay admitted without proper foundation and prejudiced the defense theory that lack of back‑spatter on Levi’s clothes undermined guilt | State: Trammell was an expert who could rely on hearsay reasonably relied upon by practitioners as background for his opinion; even if error, no prejudice given other evidence and Trammell’s equivocation | Court: even if admission were error, Levi showed no prejudice—the expert also based opinion on physical characteristics and overall evidence against Levi was overwhelming; Point Two denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sisco, 458 S.W.3d 304 (Mo. banc) (prosecutor has broad discretion to dismiss charges; dismissal without prejudice may be refiled)
- State v. Honeycutt, 96 S.W.3d 85 (Mo. banc) (court cannot convert prosecutor’s dismissal to one with prejudice or force prosecutor to trial)
- State v. Dozler, 455 S.W.3d 471 (Mo. App. S.D.) (actions or orders by a trial court after a nolle are nullities because court loses jurisdiction)
- State v. Hartman, 488 S.W.3d 53 (Mo. banc) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony and hearsay relied upon by experts)
- State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. banc) (describes two‑step plain‑error Rule 30.20 review)