State of Missouri v. Timothy T. McClendon
477 S.W.3d 206
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- McClendon was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action for shooting Jenkins at a Kansas City car wash; the evidence included video showing multiple gunshots to Jenkins who died.
- Jenkins surveilled the car wash to locate McClendon; Jenkins and McClendon exchanged gunfire during and after Jenkins approached McClendon.
- The police conducted three interviews: an initial noncustodial statement; a second uncustodial/mirandized? interview; and a third custodial, post-Miranda, interview; the second was suppressed, the third admitted after Mirandizing.
- The trial court ruled the first statement admissible, the second inadmissible, and the third admissible; the later judge affirmed, excluding references to the suppressed second statement.
- McClendon contends the third statement should have been suppressed under a two-step interrogation theory, and moreover challenges closing arguments and potential plain error issues.
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions, denying McClendon’s suppression challenge and his challenges to the closing arguments and plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Two-step interrogation constitutionality | McClendon argues police used deliberate two-step interrogation to undermine Miranda rights | State contends no deliberate strategy; statements voluntary | Point One denied; no deliberate two-step violation; third statement admissible |
| Mistrial for improper closing argument | State evidence of uncharged acts prejudiced McClendon | Curative instruction mitigates prejudice; no mistrial required | Point Two denied; no abuse of discretion |
| Plain-error review of closing argument | Rebuttal implied history between McClendon and Jenkins; uncharged acts referenced | Argument challenged but fair inference from evidence; not plain error | Point Three denied; no manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaw, 285 S.W.3d 318 (Mo. banc 2009) (standard for two-step interrogation scrutiny; Seibert influenced test)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (two-step interrogation framework and postwarning admissibility)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (rule on subsequent voluntary statements after unwarned statements)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (warning when rights understood; importance of rights awareness)
- State v. Copeland, 928 S.W.2d 828 (Mo. banc 1996) (Miranda warnings requirement in custodial interrogation)
- State v. Williams, 366 S.W.3d 609 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (motive as a factor in self-defense cases; permissible in closing)