State of Missouri v. Sylvester R. Sisco II, 458 S.W.3d 304

Background

In October 2006 Sylvester Sisco was arrested and later indicted for first‑degree murder, first‑degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action arising from a bar shooting; he was released on bond and house arrest.
Trial was repeatedly continued (prosecutor illness, docketing, judge reassignments); trial ultimately set for April 27, 2009 after various transfers and scheduling changes.
Five days before the April 2009 trial the state disclosed a new expert report identifying a latent fingerprint as Sisco’s; the court excluded that fingerprint evidence as untimely and denied the state’s renewed continuance request.
The state then entered a nolle prosequi on April 27, 2009 and immediately refiled identical charges; a new information/indictment followed and trial occurred October 5, 2009.
Sisco moved to dismiss for violation of his speedy‑trial rights (statutory and constitutional) and sought to have the nolle prosequi treated as a dismissal with prejudice; the trial court denied relief, and Sisco was convicted. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sisco)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial court could convert the state’s nolle prosequi into a dismissal with prejudice	Nolle was used to avoid an unfavorable evidentiary ruling and should be converted to dismissal with prejudice	Prosecutor has statutory discretion to dismiss without court’s consent; dismissal without prejudice and refiling were lawful	Court: Trial court lacked authority to convert a nolle to dismissal with prejudice under §56.087; nolle validly without prejudice
Whether Sisco’s Sixth Amendment/Missouri speedy‑trial rights were violated by ~3‑year delay	Length of delay plus state’s deliberate nolle and continuances create presumption of prejudice; dismissal required	Most delay was neutral or caused by defendant; only 70 days attributable to state’s deliberate nolle; defendant acquiesced long periods and suffered minimal prejudice	Court: Applied Barker factors; balance favors state—no constitutional speedy‑trial violation
Relevance of statutory speedy‑trial remedy (§545.780) to dismissal relief	Statute entitles defendant to dismissal when time limits not met	Amended statute conditions dismissal on a finding of constitutional violation; no separate statutory remedy here	Court: §545.780 now requires constitutional violation for dismissal; no independent statutory ground for relief
Whether presumption of prejudice from delay was sufficient to require dismissal	The presumptive prejudice from multi‑year delay should be dispositive	Presumptive prejudice only triggers inquiry; must balance Barker factors and show actual or intensified prejudice	Court: Presumptive prejudice triggered review but was rebutted/attenuated (acquiescence, minimal actual prejudice); dismissal not required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Honeycutt, 96 S.W.3d 85 (Mo. banc 2003) (prosecutor’s discretion to dismiss without court consent and limits on court converting dismissal)
State ex rel. Griffin v. Smith, 258 S.W.2d 590 (Mo. banc 1953) (prosecutorial discretion over prosecutions)
State v. Clinch, 335 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. App. 2011) (nolle prosequi may follow unfavorable evidentiary ruling and permit refiling)
State ex rel. St. Charles County v. Cunningham, 401 S.W.3d 493 (Mo. banc 2013) (limits on voluntary dismissal in civil proceedings post‑trial/hearing)
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967) (speedy‑trial right implicated by indefinite prosecution pendency)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptive prejudice over prolonged delays and impact on remedy)
State ex rel. Garcia v. Goldman, 316 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. banc 2010) (application of Doggett and Barker in Missouri context)
State ex rel. McKee v. Riley, 240 S.W.3d 720 (Mo. banc 2007) (dismissal required when constitutional speedy‑trial right violated)
State v. Owsley, 959 S.W.2d 789 (Mo. banc 1997) (analysis of delay allocation and defendant‑caused delay)
State v. Bolin, 643 S.W.2d 806 (Mo. banc 1983) (prejudice considerations under speedy‑trial analysis)