State of Missouri v. Michael B. Casey
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1346
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- A July 26, 2014 shooting after a large high-school reunion fight left Mario Wallace dead; defendant Michael Casey was charged with first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action. The jury acquitted on the assault-related charged but convicted Casey of second-degree murder and armed criminal action.
- Witness Pamela Christian testified she saw Casey reach into a car and shoot Wallace; Christian later identified Casey in a live lineup and became emotional and certain in that ID.
- Casey initially denied involvement, then implicated Banks as the shooter, but after a lineup and other breaks in questioning he confessed on videotape and participated in a reenactment admitting to firing the gun.
- At trial the court gave first-degree murder and lesser-included second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter instructions, but refused Casey’s requested voluntary manslaughter (sudden passion) instruction and a proposed new-model MAI eyewitness-caution instruction.
- The court excluded expert testimony offered by Dr. Charles Honts about interrogation risk factors and false confessions, reasoning the jury could view the interrogation video and assess credibility themselves.
- Casey appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by refusing the voluntary manslaughter instruction, (2) abused discretion by refusing his proffered eyewitness instruction, and (3) abused discretion by excluding the false-confession expert testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed on all points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing voluntary manslaughter instruction | State: evidence did not show sudden passion from adequate cause | Casey: victim’s pursuit and raised fists supported sudden passion instruction | Held: No error — record lacked adequate provocation and sudden passion evidence |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing proffered eyewitness caution instruction | State: trial court properly followed MAI then in effect and Notes on Use | Casey: proffered (new MAI) instruction gave useful factors on reliability (distance, lighting, certainty, lineup) | Held: No abuse — court followed applicable MAI and rejection of non-mandatory future MAI was proper; no prejudice shown |
| Whether exclusion of expert testimony on false confessions was abuse of discretion | State: jury could view videotaped interrogation and assess credibility; expert would invade jury province | Casey: Dr. Honts would show interrogation risk factors making confession unreliable | Held: No abuse — exclusion proper; similar precedent excludes expert testimony that invades credibility determination |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Avery, 120 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. banc 2003) (standard for reviewing instructional error and viewing evidence in light most favorable to defendant)
- State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2009) (when lesser-included instruction is required)
- State v. Redmond, 937 S.W.2d 205 (Mo. banc 1996) (sudden passion and adequate provocation requirements)
- State v. Arnel, 846 S.W.2d 245 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (manslaughter instruction typically justified when victim perpetrates battery)
- United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (example federal eyewitness caution instruction referenced)
- State v. Gilmore, 797 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990) (rejection of Telfaire-style additional eyewitness instructions)
- State v. Wright, 247 S.W.3d 161 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (upholding exclusion of false-confession expert testimony that invades jury’s province)
- State v. Davis, 32 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (expert testimony on credibility may be excluded)
- Price v. State, 513 S.W.2d 392 (Mo. 1974) (trial court may refuse to give future MAI not in effect at trial)