State v. Ivy
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 202
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Victim Morgan was carjacked at gunpoint; two men (Williams and appellant Darion Ivy) took his Escalade and property; Morgan saw Ivy’s face and later described him to police.
- Police located and pursued the Escalade; it crashed; Williams fled; Ivy was detained at the crash scene, handcuffed, and later approached a recruit officer (Fodde) saying he was injured.
- Morgan encountered the wrecked Escalade shortly after, identified Ivy at the scene, and three days later selected Ivy from a photo lineup with "100%" certainty.
- Ivy was tried twice: first trial resulted in mistrial on robbery count; at retrial Ivy was convicted of first-degree robbery and sentenced to 12 years (other counts resolved earlier).
- On appeal Ivy raised two issues: (1) plain error for denial of mistrial because the State failed to disclose a statement Ivy made to Officer Fodde (that he had been "hit by the car"); (2) trial court error in denying suppression of identifications and admitting Morgan’s in-court and out-of-court IDs as allegedly tainted by a suggestive show-up.
- The court affirmed: nondisclosure was a Rule 25.03 violation but not fundamentally unfair given overwhelming evidence; show-up/photo ID were not unduly suggestive and IDs were reliable and admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court plainly erred by denying mistrial for State's failure to disclose Ivy's oral statement to Officer Fodde | State failed to provide the substance of Ivy’s statement (that he was "hit by the car"), prejudicing Ivy’s preparation and strategy | Nondisclosure was not outcome-determinative; court afforded recess and Ivy chose not to testify; overwhelming evidence of guilt meant no fundamental unfairness | No plain error; disclosure violation existed but did not cause manifest injustice or affect outcome |
| Whether identification evidence should be suppressed as tainted by an unduly suggestive show-up | The photo lineup and in-court ID were tainted because Morgan had seen Ivy handcuffed at the crash, producing a suggestive show-up and risk of misidentification | Police did not arrange a suggestive show-up; Morgan’s on-scene ID was spontaneous, close in time to the crime, and based on his recollection | No error: pretrial procedure was not unduly suggestive and IDs were reliable; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Jamison, 163 S.W.3d 552 (Mo.App.E.D.2005) (purpose of Rule 25.03 disclosure and standard for "fundamental unfairness")
- Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. banc 2009) (plain-error and manifest injustice framework)
- Foster, 348 S.W.3d 158 (Mo.App.E.D.2011) (two-prong test for admissibility of identification testimony)
- Chambers, 234 S.W.3d 501 (Mo.App.E.D.2007) (focus on whether witness has independent basis for identification)
- Williams, 717 S.W.2d 561 (Mo.App.E.D.1986) (show-ups with handcuffed suspects not per se unduly suggestive when police make no overt suggestions)