State v. Wright, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 909

Wright appeals the circuit court’s judgment convicting her of first degree robbery and armed criminal action.
She had been previously convicted of receiving stolen property, and later faced a second trial on robbery and armed criminal action after a mistrial on those counts.
Between trials, Trenae Jones and Clint Jones pled guilty to related offenses in exchange for their testimony against Wright and Goodwin.
During trial, the court admitted a videotaped statement from Jones with partial redactions; two drug references remained unredacted.
The court denied a mistrial request after the unredacted references, and the jury ultimately convicted Wright as an accomplice to the robbery and armed criminal action.
Wright raises three challenges on appeal, arguing double jeopardy, improper bolstering, and improper handling of the redacted videotape.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy after successive prosecutions	Wright contends receiving stolen property is a lesser included offense of first degree robbery.	The State asserts the two offenses have distinct elements and are not in a lesser-included relationship.	Not violated; receiving stolen property by retaining is not a lesser included offense of robbery.
Admissibility of Trenae Jones’s video testimony	Admission of Exhibit 18 was improper bolstering because Jones’s credibility was not attacked.	Prior consistent statements may rehabilitate credibility once a witness’s credibility has been attacked.	Not an abuse of discretion; credibility was attacked during cross-examination, allowing prior consistent statements to rehabilitate.
Mistrial denied for unredacted drug references	Failure to properly redact drug references violated the pretrial order and warranted a mistrial.	Court could avoid mistrial with lesser corrective measures; no prejudice warranted mistrial.	No abuse of discretion; references were not decisive and no mistrial warranted.

State v. Mullenix, 73 S.W.3d 32 (Mo.App.2002) (plain-error review standards for double jeopardy claims)
State v. Sumowski, 794 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. banc 1990) (preservation of double jeopardy claims; plain-error framework)
State v. Elliott, 987 S.W.2d 418 (Mo. App. 1999) (double jeopardy sufficiency and power to proceed)
State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278 (Mo. banc 1995) (Rule 30.20 plain-error standard; threshold showing of manifest injustice)
State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. banc 2009) (plain-error review procedure for substantive errors)
State v. Goff, 129 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. banc 2004) (classic prejudice factors in ruling on mistrial due to improper evidence)
State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. banc 1997) (discretion in denying mistrial; abuse standard)
State v. Johnson, 901 S.W.2d 60 (Mo. banc 1995) (mistrial decision as discretionary; standard of review)
Peiffer v. State, 88 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. banc 2002) (whether tampering is lesser-included depending on the means of tampering)
State v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 685 (Mo.App.2011) (legality of evidentiary rehabilitation after attack on credibility)