State v. Mixon
391 S.W.3d 881
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Missouri State appeals two circuit court judgments declaring § 556.036.5 unconstitutional and dismissing charges with prejudice against Mixon and Anderson.
- The circuit court held § 556.036.5 unconstitutional as violating Art. I, §17, by allowing prosecution by complaint for felonies.
- The State filed felony complaints prior to the statutes of limitations potentially tolling; in Mixon, dismissal occurred before preliminary hearing; in Anderson, dismissal occurred after a plea waiver.
- The legislature amended § 556.036.5 in 2006 to toll the statute of limitations when a felony complaint is filed and to require information/indictment for felonies.
- Rule-based pleading and preliminary hearing requirements apply after a felony complaint is filed, but nothing in Art. I, §17 dictates limitations timing.
- The Court reverses and remands, holding no clear constitutional violation by § 556.036.5.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 556.036.5 violate Art. I, §17? | Mixon contends it permits felony prosecutions by complaint. | State argues statute preserves indictment/info requirement and tolls properly. | No clear violation; statutory tolling compatible with §17. |
| Whether tolling the limitations by filing a felony complaint conflicts with §17? | Prosecution may proceed without information/indictment. | Tolling via complaint aligns with legislative policy and Rule 22 procedures. | Tolling does not conflict with §17. |
| Did Morton v. Anderson control the outcome? | Morton supports prosecution only upon indictment or information. | Morton involved a different version and different constitutional question; not controlling here. | Morton distinguishable; not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vaughn, 366 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. banc 2012) (statutory interpretation apply de novo; tolling context)
- Murrell v. State, 215 S.W.3d 96 (Mo. banc 2007) (interpretation favors constitutional construction when possible)
- Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (statutes of limitation policy considerations; legislature governs timing)
- Kan. City Premier Apartments, Inc. v. Mo. Real Estate Comm’n, 344 S.W.3d 160 (Mo. banc 2011) (statutory challenge; de novo review; presumption of validity)
- State ex rel. Morton v. Anderson, 804 S.W.2d 25 (Mo. banc 1991) (previous version of §556.036.5; distinguishable from current tolling provision)