State of Missouri v. Michael L. Johnson, 513 S.W.3d 360

Michael L. Johnson, after learning he was HIV-positive in January 2013, had unprotected sex with multiple partners; one partner (D.K.-L.) later tested HIV-positive and others came forward.\
Johnson was charged with two counts of class A reckless infection, one class B reckless exposure, and three class C attempts to expose; jury convicted on all but one count.\
At trial the primary issue was whether Johnson had disclosed his HIV status to his partners; Johnson testified he had disclosed to most, victims testified he had not.\
The State used excerpts from jail phone recordings to impeach Johnson; those recordings (over 24 hours, excerpts from Oct and Nov 2013) were not disclosed to defense counsel until the morning trial began.\
The prosecutor admitted intentionally withholding the tapes to avoid tipping off the defendant; the trial court admitted the excerpts and denied relief after a few days, finding no fundamental unfairness.\
On appeal the Missouri Court of Appeals held the State’s intentional, untimely disclosure of inculpatory recordings violated Rule 25.03 and resulted in fundamental unfairness; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	State's Argument	Johnson's Argument	Held
Whether admission of jail-call recordings disclosed the morning of trial violated Rule 25.03 and denied a fair trial	The State said it did not have or control the recordings earlier and/or defendant knew recordings existed; argues delay did not cause fundamental unfairness	Untimely disclosure of inculpatory recordings prevented meaningful preparation, caused surprise, and was intentionally withheld to gain advantage	Reversed: State knowingly/intentionally violated Rule 25.03; admission caused fundamental unfairness and trial court abused its discretion; new trial ordered
Whether 30-year sentence for reckless infection was grossly disproportionate (Eighth Amendment claim)	State defended sentence (trial court imposed concurrent terms); argued constitutionality	Johnson argued 30 years was grossly disproportionate and cruel and unusual	Not reached — court reversed on discovery error and did not decide sentencing claim

State v. Amick, 462 S.W.3d 413 (Mo. banc 2015) (preservation rules construed to let trial court define defendant's precise claim when objection plainly informs court)\
State v. Henderson, 410 S.W.3d 760 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (untimely disclosure of defendant's statements can unfairly surprise and requires reversal)\
State v. Willis, 2 S.W.3d 801 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (discovery violations involving inculpatory statements are to be viewed with grave suspicion; continuance may not cure prejudice)\
State v. Johnson, 957 S.W.2d 734 (Mo. banc 1997) (discovery rules protect defendant's opportunity to prepare and avoid surprise)\
Merriwether v. State, 294 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. banc 2009) (State has affirmative duty of diligence to locate and disclose records in control of other governmental personnel)