State v. Lucas
559 S.W.3d 434
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Lucas was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action for the September 2015 shootings of Richardson and Long; evidence tied Lucas to the scene via cell records, matching .40 cal G2 RIP ammunition purchases, inmate confessions, a video of Lucas firing a Glock, and a recovered stolen Glock whose casings matched the scene.
- While incarcerated, Lucas made inculpatory statements to two different cellmates describing planning and committing the murders and having special .40 ‘‘kill’’ ammunition bought by his girlfriend.
- Defense sought to admit testimony from Windy Atterberry recounting telephone statements by Charles "Chuck" Pearl that he and a partner committed a double homicide; Pearl invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify at trial.
- The trial court sustained the State’s hearsay objection and excluded Atterberry’s testimony; the defense also requested a special jury instruction cautioning jurors about in-custody informant testimony, which the court refused and instead gave standard MAI witness-credibility instruction.
- Lucas filed a pro se UMDDL (180-day) speedy-trial demand; after a continuance (to secure an essential defense witness) the trial occurred more than 180 days after his pro se demand; the court denied Lucas’s motion to dismiss and Lucas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of hearsay testimony (Atterberry recounting Pearl’s confession) | Lucas: Excluding Pearl’s confession denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the out-of-court confession was exculpatory and reliable. | State: The statement is hearsay, not clearly exonerating, and fails the three indicia of reliability required for admitting third-party confessions. | Court: Affirmed exclusion—statement not shown to be exonerating; not made to a close acquaintance; lacked corroboration and other reliability indicia. |
| Refusal of special jury instruction on in-custody informant credibility | Lucas: MAI instruction inadequate; requested instruction was necessary to highlight special credibility concerns for incentivized witnesses. | State: MAI-CR3d 302.01 covers witness credibility, and defense covered informant bias on cross-examination/argument. | Court: Denied—MAI instruction sufficed; Missouri precedent rejects a special snitch instruction; no abuse of discretion. |
| Denial of dismissal under UMDDL / speedy trial claim | Lucas: Trial occurred >180 days after his pro se UMDDL demand; he did not consent to continuance so dismissal required. | State: UMDDL inapplicable because no detainer in record; continuance had good cause (unavailable essential witness); constitutional speedy-trial claim not preserved below. | Court: Denied—Lucas failed to prove a lodged detainer (UMDDL inapplicable); no plain error on constitutional speedy-trial ground; continuance justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (trial court discretion to admit/exclude evidence)
- State v. Schaal, 806 S.W.2d 659 (Mo. banc 1991) (third-party opportunity/motive evidence insufficient without direct connecting act)
- State v. Hutchison, 957 S.W.2d 757 (Mo. banc 1997) (three indicia of reliability for admitting out-of-court confessions)
- State v. Anglin, 45 S.W.3d 470 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (all three reliability indicia must be met for confession hearsay admission)
- State v. Mayes, 63 S.W.3d 615 (Mo. banc 2001) (MAI witness-credibility instruction sufficient to address informant bias)