State v. Roberts, 465 S.W.3d 899

In June 2012 Brandon Roberts assaulted A.A. in a household altercation; witnesses (children) reported he beat her with a hammer/shower rod.
Roberts was charged as a persistent offender with second-degree domestic assault (knowingly causing injury) and witness tampering (attempting to persuade the victim not to testify).
At trial Roberts testified he acted in self-defense; the jury was instructed only on second-degree (knowingly) assault and acquitted/convicted options were presented accordingly.
Roberts requested a jury instruction on the nested lesser-included offense of third-degree domestic assault (recklessly causing injury); the trial court denied the request.
The jury convicted Roberts of second-degree domestic assault and witness tampering; he was sentenced to consecutive terms and appealed arguing (1) the court erred by refusing the lesser-included instruction and (2) the court erred by denying severance of the charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on third-degree (reckless) domestic assault as a lesser-included offense of second-degree (knowing) domestic assault	Roberts: The offenses are "nested" (differ only by mens rea). If evidence supports acquittal of the greater offense, there's a basis to convict of the lesser; thus the jury should be instructed on third-degree assault.	State: The different mental states are not a differential element producing a nested lesser offense; evidence of knowing conduct only supports knowing, not merely reckless, culpability.	Court: Reversed — third-degree assault is a nested lesser-included offense because differing mens rea are differential elements and proof of knowing also establishes recklessness under §562.021.4; trial court erred by refusing the instruction.
Whether the trial court erred by denying Roberts' motion to sever the assault and witness tampering charges	Roberts: Joinder of the assault and tampering charges prejudiced him; severance was required to avoid confusion/prejudice.	State: Joinder was proper because the tampering was connected to the assault and aimed to evade responsibility; offenses are connected and simple to separate.	Court: Affirmed — joinder was permissible and trial court did not abuse its discretion; the charges were connected and unlikely to cause jury confusion.

State v. Jackson, 483 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. banc 2014) (a jury may disbelieve all or part of evidence; nested lesser-included offenses require instruction when offenses differ by one element the State must prove)
State v. McKinney, 314 S.W.3d 339 (Mo. banc 2010) (liberal joinder favored; severance reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Morrow, 968 S.W.2d 100 (Mo. banc 1998) (offenses are "connected" when dependent or related to one another)