417 S.W.3d 773
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant returned home shortly after midnight with extensive blood on his person and clothing; wife observed him washing blood in the bathroom and cleaning up. Police later found the victim dead from blunt force trauma and asphyxia with evidence of biting and cutting; Defendant’s blood/DNA and the victim’s blood were found on his clothes and in his bathroom.
- Defendant was tried on first-degree murder (Count I) and armed criminal action (Count II); he pled not guilty and asserted the Fifth Amendment at trial (did not testify).
- The jury convicted on both counts; the court later sentenced Defendant to life without parole for Count I and 150 years for Count II.
- On appeal Defendant raised 12 points, challenging (inter alia) exclusion/limits on a mental-disease defense, Batson strikes, instructional errors (manner of death, omission of mandatory-sentence language, self-defense, lesser-included offenses, voluntary-intoxication), voir dire, evidentiary rulings, denial of mistrial, jury sentencing procedure, and sufficiency of the evidence.
- The trial court admitted forensic evidence (blood/DNA, bite-mark matching) and the State’s expert examination of Defendant after Defendant had put his mental condition into controversy.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed on all points, finding no reversible error or prejudice and that the evidence supported sufficiency and armed criminal action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Mental-disease defense/exam | State: court may order neutral exam when mental condition is in controversy | Drisdel: ordering interview with State’s psychologist violated Fifth Amendment and attorney-client privilege | Court: Defendant waived privileges by placing mental condition at issue; State exam permissible. |
| 2. Batson challenge | State: strikes were race-neutral (warrant, equivocation on intoxication instruction, employment) | Drisdel: prosecutor struck four African‑Americans; reasons pretextual | Court: found State’s reasons credible; defense failed to prove pretext. |
| 3. Verdict director omitted mandatory-sentence language | State: omission harmless because sentence mandated and jury had no sentencing role | Drisdel: MAI-CR 3d 314.02 language required; omission presumptively prejudicial | Court: although presumptively prejudicial, no actual prejudice given mandatory sentencing; harmless. |
| 4. Voir dire on mandatory life sentence | State: proper to inform panel of punishment | Drisdel: court allowed State to question panel about imposing mandatory sentence | Court: record shows judge, not State, discussed mandatory sentence; no error. |
| 5. Self-defense instruction refused | Drisdel: substantial evidence supported self‑defense | State: evidence showed severe injuries to victim, minimal to Defendant; no reasonable self-defense | Court: no substantial evidence of self-defense; refusal proper. |
| 6. Mistrial for prosecutor’s closing remark | Drisdel: State improperly told jury they did not get self-defense instruction | State: comment cured by court sustaining objection and admonition | Court: sustained objection and jury instruction to disregard removed prejudice; denial of mistrial not abuse. |
| 7. Jury sentencing dismissal / waiver | Drisdel: court lacked authority to dismiss jury and defer sentencing without explicit waiver for Count I | State: Defendant failed to object timely; plain-error review not warranted | Court: claim not preserved; no manifest injustice—declined plain-error review. |
| 8. Lesser-included involuntary manslaughter | Drisdel: evidence supported reckless killing instruction | State: jury already had second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter instructions; convicted of first-degree | Court: no error—conviction of greater offense defeats need for additional lesser-included instruction. |
| 9. Verdict director added “asphyxiating” (variance) | Drisdel: variance from indictment prejudiced defense | State: indictment charged striking; evidence supported striking and asphyxiation; no prejudice | Court: variance did not impair notice or defense; declined plain-error relief. |
| 10. Voluntary intoxication instruction | State: evidence of vodka and drug paraphernalia supported instruction | Drisdel: no evidence he consumed alcohol | Court: evidence (half bottle vodka, crack pipe with his DNA) supported instruction; no error. |
| 11. Exclusion of Detective’s testimony about Defendant’s self-defense statement | Drisdel: statement admissible to explain subsequent police conduct | State: detective’s recounting was hearsay and not merely background | Court: statement offered for its truth and not necessary to explain police action; hearsay excluded properly. |
| 12. Sufficiency of evidence for deliberation and armed criminal action | State: multiple blows, asphyxiation, biting, knife use show deliberation and armed act | Drisdel: no deliberation shown; death not directly from weapon | Court: evidence supported deliberation and that a knife was used; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. banc 1993) (trial court discretion on relying upon mental-disease defense)
- State v. Worthington, 8 S.W.3d 83 (Mo. banc 1999) (placing mental condition in controversy waives privilege for exam)
- State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. banc 1992) (three-step Batson framework)
- State v. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. banc 2010) (MAI-CR instructions: use MAI-CR when applicable; errors presumptively prejudicial)
- State v. Weems, 840 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. banc 1992) (self-defense instruction required if supported by substantial evidence)
- State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. banc 2010) (deliberation can be brief; proved by surrounding circumstances)
- U.S. v. Granados, 596 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2010) (outstanding warrant is race-neutral basis for peremptory strike)
- State v. Glass, 136 S.W.3d 514 (Mo. App.) (multiple wounds and asphyxiation support inference of deliberation)