State v. Lilly
410 S.W.3d 699
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Keith Lilly was charged in Jackson County with driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene after an incident on Sept. 16, 2011; prosecution remains pending.
- Lilly moved to suppress his pretrial statements and any evidence derived from them, arguing the State failed to establish the corpus delicti and that Miranda warnings were not given before questioning.
- The circuit court granted Lilly’s motion, suppressing all statements and evidence “in derogation of the corpus delicti rule,” and suppressed both pre- and post-Miranda statements.
- The State sought interlocutory review under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 547.200.1, which permits State appeals from orders whose substantive effect is (3) suppressing evidence or (4) suppressing a confession or admission.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether the trial court’s corpus delicti-based exclusion constitutes a “suppression” within the meaning of § 547.200.1 and thus whether interlocutory appeal was authorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may take an interlocutory appeal under § 547.200.1 from the trial court’s exclusion of Lilly’s statements and derivative evidence | State: The trial court ‘‘suppressed evidence/confessions’’ by excluding Lilly’s statements, so § 547.200.1 authorizes interlocutory appeal | Lilly: The exclusion was based on the corpus delicti rule (an evidentiary sufficiency/corroboration rule), not illegal-obtaining suppression; § 547.200.1 does not apply | Court: Dismissed appeal — corpus delicti exclusion is evidentiary, not a § 547.200.1 “suppression” for interlocutory review |
| Whether exclusion of extrajudicial statements for failure to establish corpus delicti is equivalent to suppression of illegally obtained evidence | State: (implicit) exclusion of statements functionally suppresses evidence/confession, permitting appeal | Lilly: Corpus delicti is an independent evidentiary requirement; such exclusions do not rest on illegal obtainment and are not appealable under § 547.200.1 | Court: Corpus delicti exclusions are evidentiary and not appealable under §§ 547.200.1(3)–(4); State may seek remedial writ or trial-court reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Madorie, 156 S.W.3d 351 (Mo. banc 2005) (explains corpus delicti rule and that slight corroboration suffices)
- State v. Moad, 294 S.W.3d 83 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (an exclusion is appealable only if evidence was illegally obtained)
- State v. Burns, 339 S.W.3d 570 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (exclusion on evidentiary/regulatory grounds not appealable under § 547.200.1)
- State v. Eisenhouer, 40 S.W.3d 916 (Mo. banc 2001) (defining ‘‘suppression’’ as excluding illegally obtained evidence)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda-warning principle referenced regarding contested pretrial questioning)