State v. Salmon, 563 S.W.3d 725

Background

Salmon charged with first-degree endangering a child (failure to provide nutrition) and alternative count of neglect/abuse; acquitted of abuse/neglect; convicted of endangering and sentenced to three years.
Baby M., born Feb 26, 2014, had multiple pediatric visits for poor weight gain; doctors later found severe malnourishment, visible ribs, hypotonia, and fractures consistent with abuse; hospital feeding produced rapid weight gain.
Salmon and co-defendant Ashcraft were indicted separately; Ashcraft tried and convicted in May 2016; Salmon's trial proceeded in June 2016 after the court and defense agreed to separate trial dates.
At Salmon's trial the prosecutor cross-examined a defense witness (half-brother Hooker) with questions referencing Salmon's recent alleged assaults and juvenile record (including a alleged "shanking"); the court sustained one objection but denied a motion for mistrial; jury was later instructed to disregard juvenile-violence references.
The prosecutor also performed (or represented he performed) demonstrative bottle-filling during trial and referenced it in closing; the record lacks a clear foundation for those demonstrations.
On appeal the court found the juvenile-record/prior-bad-acts questioning prejudicial and reversible, reversed the conviction on that basis, and remanded for a new trial; other points (including prosecutorial disqualification and demonstratives) were discussed but not reached or reserved for remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Salmon)	Held
Admission of juvenile record & prior bad acts on cross-exam of defense witness	Questions were proper impeachment/response to defense opinion about Salmon's character	Questions improperly introduced confidential juvenile records and uncharged bad acts; mistrial required	Reversed: prosecutor improperly elicited juvenile record and inflammatory prior acts; mistrial should have been granted; prejudice not cured by instruction
Disqualification of prosecutor for dual role with Juvenile Office	Dual roles were permissible; not raised as reversible error given remand	APA Rehmer conflicted by representing juvenile office in termination proceedings for Salmon's child	Not decided on merits due to remand; court warned dual roles grant access to privileged juvenile records and must not be abused
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove "knowingly" endangering by underfeeding	Evidence of malnourishment, pediatric counseling, weight stagnation, and hospital weight gain support a knowing failure to provide adequate nutrition	Salmon fed as claimed; pediatrician never explicitly told her Baby M. was malnourished or in peril	Held sufficient: a reasonable juror could infer Salmon knowingly created substantial risk from circumstantial evidence; Point I denied
Double jeopardy / severance after Ashcraft tried in May	Trying Ashcraft without Salmon on earlier date amounted to abandonment of Salmon's charges and acquittal	Salmon requested separate trial dates; court and parties effectively severed; no prejudice shown	Denied: Salmon invited/separately requested trial schedule; effective severance occurred; no double jeopardy

Key Cases Cited

State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301 (Mo. banc) (juvenile records confidentiality is mandatory)
State v. Miner, 657 S.W.2d 332 (Mo. App. E.D.) (juvenile records inadmissibility)
State v. Middleton, 998 S.W.2d 520 (Mo. banc) (curative admissibility/"opening the door" doctrine)
State v. Blurton, 484 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. banc) (prosecutorial injection of evidentiary error may warrant mistrial)
State v. Perry, 275 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. banc) (jury may disbelieve defendant and infer guilt from fabricated explanations)
State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. banc) (standard for appellate sufficiency review in jury trials)
State v. McClendon, 895 S.W.2d 249 (Mo. App. E.D.) (close cases may require reversal when improperly admitted evidence is prejudicial)
Nunn v. State, 778 S.W.2d 707 (Mo. App. E.D.) (limits on prosecutor acting as witness; functions should be disassociated)
Johnson v. State, 477 S.W.3d 2 (Mo. App. E.D.) (a party cannot complain of errors invited by them)
State v. Prince, 534 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. banc) (distinguishing admissibility of juvenile records in sexual-offense cases under Missouri Constitution)