State of Missouri v. Markus Steed, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 165

On May 29, 2012, police recognized Markus (Markus/Marcus used interchangeably in record) Steed, arrested him on active warrants, and during a pat-down discovered a loaded 9mm semiautomatic pistol in his waistband beneath his untucked shirt.
The State charged Steed with unlawful possession of a firearm (felon in possession) and unlawful use of a weapon (carrying a concealed firearm).
At trial officers identified the seized gun; testimony included inconsistent descriptions of the gun’s finish (described as rusty/brown, nickel finish, and blue-steel with slight rust).
The parties stipulated to Steed’s prior felony convictions; Steed rested without presenting defense evidence.
During deliberations the jury asked to continue the next day, then asked what to do if they could not reach unanimity; the court instructed the jury to continue deliberating after defense moved for a mistrial.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts; Steed was sentenced as a prior offender to concurrent terms (7 years and 2 years) and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after instructing the jury to continue deliberations	State: instruction to continue was proper and not coercive	Steed: the court’s instruction (after jury questioned unanimity) was coercive and compelled guilty verdicts	Court: No abuse of discretion; instruction to continue was not coercive and verdict not shown coerced
Whether evidence was insufficient to support convictions due to conflicting descriptions of the gun	State: testimony sufficiently proved Steed knowingly possessed the gun	Steed: conflicting witness descriptions cast doubt that the exhibit was the seized gun, undermining proof beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: Evidence was sufficient; discrepancies were credibility issues for the jury

State v. Salazar, 414 S.W.3d 606 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (standard of review for mistrial denial)
State v. Bracken, 333 S.W.3d 48 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion definition)
State v. Blankenship, 415 S.W.3d 116 (Mo. banc 2013) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
State v. Manley, 414 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (coercion and jury instruction guidance)
State v. Griffith, 312 S.W.3d 413 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (when a verdict is considered coerced)
State v. Greenlee, 327 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (jury coercion factors)
State v. Saunders, 318 S.W.3d 745 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (consideration of numerical jury split as coercion evidence)
State v. Dvorak, 295 S.W.3d 493 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (credibility and conflicts in testimony are for the jury)
State v. Slocum, 420 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element)