State of Missouri v. Lonny Leroy Mays
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 718
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On March 26, 2012, Lonny Mays and victim Rudy Romdall had a longstanding dispute; neighbors observed Mays following/harassing Romdall that morning and witnesses heard gunshots near Romdall’s truck; Romdall died from a gunshot wound.
- Mays purchased .30-30 ammunition the morning of the shooting and later admitted to others that he believed he had shot someone with a .30-30 rifle.
- The next day Mays turned himself in; a black Ford Ranger believed to be his was found at a state park marina, people were seen handling items around the truck, and the truck was seized and later searched under a warrant.
- At trial Mays was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action following a jury trial.
- Pretrial, Mays moved to exclude testimony of Joseph Rhodes (a retired minister) under the clergy-communicant privilege and moved to suppress evidence from the truck as a product of an unlawful warrantless seizure; both motions were denied.
- On appeal Mays argued (1) Rhodes’s testimony was privileged and should have been excluded, and (2) the truck seizure violated the Fourth Amendment; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rhodes’s testimony was barred by the clergy-communicant privilege | Mays: Rhodes’s testimony about communications is privileged and therefore inadmissible under §491.060(4) | State: Communication was not made in a spiritual/confessional context (no request for counsel, prayer, or absolution) and testimony was admissible | Admission of Rhodes’s testimony, even if erroneous, was not outcome-determinative; point denied |
| Whether seizure of Mays’s truck without warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and required suppression of evidence | Mays: Truck seizure was a warrantless seizure lacking exigent circumstances or probable cause to impound | State: Officers had probable cause the truck was part of the crime scene and exigent circumstances (vehicle mobility, people handling items, potential removal of evidence) justified securing it pending a warrant | Trial court did not err; seizure fell under automobile/exigent-circumstances rationale and evidence was admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Joyner, 458 S.W.3d 875 (Mo. App. W.D.) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and outcome-determinative prejudice)
- State v. Merrill, 990 S.W.2d 166 (Mo. App. W.D.) (cumulative evidence diminishes prejudice from erroneously admitted evidence)
- State v. Wadas, 225 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. App. W.D.) (de novo review of statutory privilege interpretation)
- State v. Walker, 460 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. App. W.D.) (automobile-exception standard for vehicle searches)
- State v. Barton, 936 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. banc) (standard for prejudice from trial court abuses affecting argument/evidence)
- State v. Gerhart, 129 S.W.3d 893 (Mo. App. W.D.) (scope of clergy-communicant privilege and retired ministers)