Summary
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the state's appeal from an interlocutory order quashing investigative subpoenas was permissible because the order had the substantive effect of suppressing evidence. The court affirmed the order on the ground that section 56.085 did not authorize subpoenas requiring witnesses to produce unrecorded personal knowledge. The court declined to decide whether section 210.140 abrogated the minister-communicant privilege or violated the constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court's interlocutory order quashing the investigative subpoenas was appealable by the State.
- Whether section 56.085 authorized subpoenas requiring witnesses to produce their unrecorded personal knowledge or recollections.
- Whether section 210.140 abrogating the minister-communicant privilege in child-abuse matters violated the Free Exercise Clause.
Holdings
- An order quashing investigative subpoenas is appealable by the State under section 547.200.1(3) when it has the substantive effect of suppressing evidence in a criminal case.
- Section 56.085 does not authorize an investigative subpoena duces tecum ordering a witness to produce unrecorded personal knowledge or recollections.
- The court did not decide the constitutional question because the case was fully resolved by interpreting section 56.085.
Key quotations
“"Suppression" is a term used when dealing with evidence that is not objectionable as violating any rule of evidence, but that instead has been illegally obtained.” (40 S.W.3d at 919)
“The Court concludes, therefore, that an unrecorded memory or knowledge of events is not "books, papers, records, or other material."” (40 S.W.3d at 920)
Factual background
Richard Bloom and Charles Graham, elders of a Jehovah's Witness congregation, were served with investigative subpoenas duces tecum requiring them to appear at the prosecuting attorney's office and bring relevant materials, including personal knowledge concerning State v. Eisenhouer. The State sought information about an alleged confession by Eisenhouer, who was charged with statutory rape and statutory sodomy involving his stepdaughters. The elders moved to quash, asserting minister-communicant privilege and free-exercise protections, and the circuit court quashed the subpoenas.
Procedural history
The Texas County circuit court quashed subpoenas seeking materials, including the elders' personal knowledge concerning the criminal case. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the order was appealable because it had the substantive effect of suppressing evidence. The court affirmed the order on the ground that the subpoenas were not authorized by section 56.085 and declined to reach the constitutional challenge to section 210.140.