393 S.W.3d 621
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Peal was convicted by a jury of second-degree (felony) murder with robbery in the second degree as the predicate offense.
- The State admitted a video from Peal’s cell phone, unemployment status, and a photo display of booking photos as evidence over Peal’s objections.
- Hobson and friends were attacked at Break Time after leaving a party; money was flashed and gunfire ensued, resulting in Hobson’s death.
- Surveillance video identified Peal; a gun linked to the scene’s shell casings and fragments was recovered from Jerel Bryant.
- Two cell phones with Peal’s numbers and Peal’s own admission of his number were found in a vehicle associated with him.
- A second gun was discovered months later near Providence Urgent Care, prompting a motion for remand based on newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Video admissibility for motive | Video shows money obsession; establishes motive, not character. | Video is impermissible character evidence showing propensity. | Video admissible to prove motive; not improper character evidence. |
| Unemployment evidence admissibility | Unemployment relates to motive to commit robbery. | Unemployment is irrelevant to the charged offense and is prejudicial. | Unemployment evidence admissible to establish motive. |
| Booking photo display admissibility | Photo display helps show involvement of others in concert. | Booking photos are prejudicial and not legally relevant. | Photo display admitted after tailoring to reduce prejudice; relevant to concert theory. |
| Remand for newly discovered evidence | New gun found near Break Time could change outcome; warrants remand. | Evidence not likely to change outcome; not a basis for remand. | Motion denied; no basis to remand for newly discovered evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. banc 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for evidence admissibility)
- State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (trial court broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence)
- State v. Oplinger, 193 S.W.3d 766 (Mo.App. S.D. 2006) (probative value vs prejudice in evidence rulings)
- State v. Slagle, 206 S.W.3d 404 (Mo.App. W.D. 2006) (prohibits using bad character to prove bad conduct)
- State v. Driscoll, 55 S.W.3d 350 (Mo. banc 2001) (distinguishes admissible motive evidence from impermissible propensity evidence)
- State v. Winfrey, 337 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. banc 2011) (motive, intent, absence of mistake, common plan exceptions to character evidence)
- State v. Mayes, 63 S.W.3d 615 (Mo. banc 2001) (motive evidence from prior marital/financial pressures)
- State v. Danikas, 11 S.W.3d 782 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999) (remoteness of motive evidence affects weight, not admissibility)