State v. Mason, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 460

Defendant Keith Mason was arrested Jan 17, 2012 for multiple sexual offenses against a child under 14; trial commenced Mar 6, 2013 (≈13 months after arrest).
Charges tried: three counts first‑degree statutory sodomy, two counts second‑degree statutory sodomy, one count second‑degree statutory rape (one first‑degree statutory rape charge was dismissed; jury acquitted on another count).
Defense filed a speedy‑trial request in Apr 2012 and moved to dismiss for Sixth Amendment violation after delays; trial court denied the motion the day of trial, finding several continuances attributable to Defendant.
Five continuances occurred: three clearly due to defense (discovery request, two counsel scheduling conflicts); two attributable to the State/administrative reasons (court assignment, prosecutor/witness conflict).
At trial, the court excluded a portion of a statement Defendant allegedly made that referenced the victim’s sexual conduct with “other guys,” sustaining the State’s motion in limine under the rape‑shield statute; Defendant did not object at trial and raised the completeness claim later.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mason)	Held
Whether 13‑month delay violated Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial right	Delay was partly attributable to Defendant; State had neutral reasons for other continuances; Defendant showed no actual prejudice	Delay was presumptively prejudicial, Defendant timely asserted right, continuances occurred over his objection and caused severe anxiety	Court: Denied dismissal. Length presumptively prejudicial and assertion established, but reasons for delay and lack of proven prejudice (no impairment of defense) weigh for State; no abuse of discretion
Whether trial court erred by excluding portion of Defendant’s statement under rape‑shield / rule of completeness	Excluded portion concerned victim’s prior sexual conduct and was barred by §491.015; Defendant failed to follow statutory procedure and did not preserve objections at trial	Exclusion violated rule of completeness; full statement was necessary to test witness credibility and context	Court: No plain or reversible error. Omitted language plainly referenced prior sexual conduct, no timely offer of proof or statutory motion; rule of completeness does not override rape‑shield statute

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four‑factor balancing test for speedy‑trial claims)
State v. Perry, 954 S.W.2d 554 (Mo. App. 1997) (8‑month delay is presumptively prejudicial in Missouri)
State v. Ferdinand, 371 S.W.3d 844 (Mo. App. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of dismissal for speedy‑trial violation)
State v. Scott, 348 S.W.3d 788 (Mo. App. 2011) (speedy‑trial interests and factor analysis)
State v. Greenlee, 327 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. App. 2010) (weighting reasons for delay; neutral delays weigh against State but less heavily)
State v. Garcia, 316 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. banc 2010) (threshold for presumptively prejudicial delay and Barker application)
State v. Marshall, 410 S.W.3d 663 (Mo. App. 2013) (discussion of rule of completeness; not applied as exception to rape‑shield statute)