State v. Eaton, 563 S.W.3d 841

Appellant Rex Eaton, a Potosi Correctional Center inmate with prior conduct violations, was charged with two counts of Endangering a Correctional Employee for throwing a container of urine and feces that struck Officer Null.
On the morning of the incident officers heard Eaton threaten to throw urine and feces; during a wellness check Eaton flung the mixture through the food port after a shield was placed.
Eaton moved in limine to exclude evidence of prior uncharged acts; the court granted it but allowed testimony about the threats made that morning.
During trial Officer Hand testified Eaton said he was "known to do this in the past," prompting an objection and a denied mistrial; the court offered a jury instruction to disregard which defense counsel declined and instead impeached Hand.
After a guilty verdict, Eaton erupted during jury polling; defense moved for mistrial again, which the trial court denied. Eaton was sentenced to two consecutive seven-year terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a mistrial was required when Officer Hand, over objection, relayed Eaton's threat that referenced prior acts	Eaton: Hand's remark referenced prior bad acts contrary to the motion in limine and was highly prejudicial, requiring a mistrial	State: The remark was an isolated, uninvited response about contemporaneous threats; prosecutor did not elicit prior-act evidence and had warned witnesses about the limine	Court denied mistrial — Hand's comment was isolated, vague, uninvited, promptly addressed, and not outcome-determinative
Whether a mistrial was required after Eaton's outburst during jury polling	Eaton: The outburst occurred while polling was incomplete and could have swayed jurors who might otherwise have dissented	State: Any prejudice was self-inflicted by Eaton; the court need not reward disruptive conduct with a mistrial	Court denied mistrial — any prejudice was of Eaton's own making and did not require reversal

State v. Frezzell, 251 S.W.3d 380 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (general rule excluding other-crimes evidence)
State v. Salmon, 563 S.W.3d 725 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (intentional elicitation of other-crimes evidence can require mistrial)
State v. Goff, 129 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. banc 2004) (five-factor test for uninvited references to other crimes)
State v. Brown, 444 S.W.3d 484 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (distinguishing inadvertent witness statements from prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Olinghouse, 605 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. banc 1980) (no requirement to grant mistrial for defendant-created disruption)