545 S.W.3d 348
Mo.2018Background
- Healea's attorney-client conversation was surreptitiously recorded by police while he was in custody; State conceded the recording violated Healea's Sixth Amendment right and departmental policy.
- A special master prepared a report that described the substance of questions Healea asked his attorney (paragraph 10) and recommended excluding evidence about the conversation rather than dismissing charges.
- The trial court held hearings on the master's report (Feb. 9 and Mar. 2, 2017), adopted the master's recommendations, suppressed evidence about the privileged conversation, and ordered most exhibits sealed while setting limited unsealing dates.
- Healea sought mandamus relief from the Missouri Supreme Court to (1) seal the portion of the master's report describing privileged communications, (2) compel a hearing on objections before the trial court adopted the report, (3) exclude blood-test evidence because a signed warrant was allegedly missing at the hearing, and (4) disqualify the Attorney General’s Office and order the police to purge recordings.
- The trial court did not rule on Healea’s disqualification and purge requests; it did rule on suppression and partial sealing/unsealing and found the blood-draw warrant was properly signed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paragraph 10 of the master’s report describing attorney-client substance must be sealed | Seal paragraph 10 because it reveals privileged communications | State agreed paragraph 10 should be sealed but opposed sealing remainder | Court ordered paragraph 10 sealed and the rest unsealed |
| Whether mandamus should compel trial court to hold an additional hearing on objections before adopting master’s report | Healea sought writ to force hearing before adoption | Trial court already held two hearings and considered objections | Denied — trial court had already considered objections |
| Whether mandamus should order exclusion of blood-test results because signed warrant was missing at hearing | Healea argued exclusion under §542.276 and that signed warrant absence invalidated evidence | State argued warrant was signed and issue is appealable | Denied — adequate relief exists on appeal; trial court found warrant signed |
| Whether mandamus should disqualify AG’s Office and force police to purge recordings | Healea argued disqualification and purge necessary because AG possessed the DVD and police recorded privileged call | State/trial court record showed no refusal ruling; factual resolution needed | Denied — mandamus improper because trial court made no refusal and no clear, existing right shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Hewitt v. Kerr, 461 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2015) (mandamus standard; relator must show clear, specific right)
- State v. Nunley, 341 S.W.3d 611 (Mo. banc 2011) (appellate review limited where arguments not adequately developed)
- State v. Douglass, 544 S.W.3d 182 (Mo. banc 2018) (issues like search-warrant validity are typically addressed on appeal)
- State ex rel. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 218 S.W. 310 (Mo. banc 1919) (mandamus requires existing clear right and corresponding duty)
- State ex rel. Star Pub. Co. v. Associated Press, 60 S.W. 91 (Mo. 1900) (mandamus ordinarily requires prior specific demand and refusal)
- State v. Lemasters, 456 S.W.3d 416 (Mo. banc 2015) (test for disqualification of prosecuting authority — appearance of impropriety to reasonable person)