State v. Henderson, 410 S.W.3d 760

Henderson was arrested after police executing a warrant at a Rutger Street residence found a loaded rifle and ammunition; police observed paperwork in the house and detained Henderson near his vehicle.
During booking at the police station Henderson completed and signed a booking form listing the Rutger Street address.
Defense served a written Rule 25.03 discovery request seeking written or recorded statements and defendant statements; the State endorsed Detective Garcia but did not produce the booking form before trial.
At trial Henderson argued in opening that he did not live at the Rutger Street residence (it was his girlfriend’s); mid-trial the prosecutor obtained the booking form and disclosed it to the court and defense.
The trial court admitted the booking form and Detective Garcia’s testimony about its creation over defense objection; Henderson was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced as a persistent felony offender.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the State’s untimely disclosure of Henderson’s inculpatory statement on the booking form violated Rule 25.03 and resulted in fundamental unfairness requiring a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State violated Rule 25.03 by failing to disclose the booking form	State: did not intend to use the form initially and promptly disclosed it once obtained	Henderson: Rule 25.03(A)(2) required disclosure of written statements by defendant; booking form is a statement and should have been produced	Violation: failure to disclose the booking form before trial violated Rule 25.03(A)(2)
Whether admission of the late-disclosed booking form warranted exclusion or other sanction	State: other evidence showed residence; late disclosure was inadvertent and short notice was sufficient	Henderson: late disclosure caused genuine surprise and prevented meaningful preparation and strategy	Held: admission amounted to fundamental unfairness; evidence should have been excluded and conviction reversed
Whether prejudice was sufficiently shown to require reversal	State: defendant didn’t request continuance and other evidence was strong	Henderson: booking form was highly inculpatory, undermined defense theory and deprived counsel time to respond	Held: prejudice shown—defense deprived of decent opportunity to prepare; reversal and new trial required

State v. Zetina-Torres, 400 S.W.3d 343 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (standards for reviewing discovery violations and sanctions)
State v. Thompson, 985 S.W.2d 779 (Mo. banc 1999) (defines "fundamental unfairness" as genuine surprise preventing meaningful preparation)
State v. Rippee, 118 S.W.3d 682 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose includes information learnable through reasonable inquiry)
State v. Willis, 2 S.W.3d 801 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (defendant’s written or oral statements are discoverable; failure to disclose such statements is especially prejudicial)
State v. Scott, 943 S.W.2d 730 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (defendant’s oral statements to lay witnesses treated as statements for discovery)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings referenced regarding custodial arrest)