State v. Carter, 523 S.W.3d 590

Background

Carter was tried for eight counts (two robberies on separate dates): four counts of first-degree robbery and four counts of armed criminal action (two counts for April 21, 2014; two counts for April 25, 2014).
Pretrial, Carter moved to sever the two incidents arguing risk of propensity inference and conflicting defenses; the trial court denied the motion and Carter renewed but did not preserve further objections at trial.
Evidence: both robberies involved Craigslist transactions for multiple cell phones, a red Kia with two African‑American men, a passenger who used a bag to produce a gun and rob victims at parking‑lot meetings; Carter was identified by one victim, arrested after the second robbery, had phone-call links to victims, and DNA consistent with handling the recovered gun.
During closing, the State argued the two incidents shared a common modus operandi; Carter did not object to that argument or move for mistrial at that time.
After conviction, Carter absconded briefly before sentencing (two days), which caused a mistrial for sentencing; he was later recaptured, waived jury sentencing, filed an untimely motion for new trial raising severance, and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion to sever the two robberies	Carter: joinder prejudiced him; State's MO argument in closing increased prejudice and amounted to propensity evidence; trial court had continuing duty to sever or declare mistrial	State: joinder proper; any claim not preserved; evidence of both robberies admissible to show identity/was simple and distinct	Court affirmed: no abuse. Evidence of both robberies would be admissible under the signature modus operandi identity exception; even if not, joinder posed no substantial prejudice because evidence was simple, distinct, and jury instructions required separate consideration.
Whether appeal should be dismissed under the escape rule because Carter absconded after verdict	State: escape rule may bar appeals where escape adversely affects system (administrative burden, juror fear, delay)	Carter: escape was only two days, mitigated by waiver of jury sentencing, so rule inapplicable	Court declined to dismiss though acknowledged escape rule could apply; exercised discretion not to dismiss because the appeal lacked merit.
Whether Carter preserved error for appellate review	Carter: pretrial severance request and renewed motion preserved claim and trial court had continuing duty	State: failure to object during closing and untimely new‑trial motion means only plain error review applies	Court: claim was not timely preserved (motion for new trial untimely) so reviewed for plain error but found no error plain or otherwise.
Whether State’s closing improperly invited propensity inference requiring curative instruction or mistrial	Carter: State’s MO argument invited propensity reasoning and prejudiced jurors	State: argument tied similarities to identity, not propensity; identification and other evidence supported admission of both incidents	Court: closing argued identity via signature MO and followed by specific ID evidence; no objection made; any curative instruction would have mirrored existing Instruction No. 48; no reversible error.

Key Cases Cited

State v. McKinney, 314 S.W.3d 339 (Mo. banc 2010) (severance warranted only for particularized showing of substantial prejudice; consider number of offenses, complexity, and jury's ability to separate evidence)
State v. Vorhees, 248 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. banc 2008) (signature modus operandi identity exception permits admission of other‑acts evidence to prove identity when methodology is unusually distinctive)
State v. Bowman, 337 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. banc 2011) (requires more than mere similarity; prior acts must be nearly identical and so distinctive as to resemble a signature)
State v. Troupe, 891 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. banc 1995) (describing rationales for applying the escape rule and adverse effects on the justice system)
State v. Starnes, 318 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (jury verdict date starts deadline for filing motion for new trial under Rule 29.11)