State ex rel. Matthew Becker, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney v. The Honorable Gael D. Wood

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri made permanent a preliminary writ of prohibition preventing the circuit court from compelling the elected prosecuting attorney and an associate prosecutor to testify at a pretrial hearing concerning prosecutorial vindictiveness. The Court held that the prosecutors' sentencing rationale constituted privileged attorney work product and that the defendant's allegations did not establish a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness or otherwise require the State to provide testimony. A dissenting opinion would have quashed the writ, concluding that the circuit court had discretion to permit limited testimony concerning the delayed notice of intent to seek the death penalty.

Holdings

1. The circuit court could not compel Becker and Houston to provide sworn testimony regarding the rationale for seeking the death penalty because that rationale consists of privileged intangible attorney work product, and prosecutorial vindictiveness is not a peculiar and unusual circumstance justifying prosecutorial testimony.
2. Hodges's allegations did not establish a presumption or realistic likelihood of prosecutorial vindictiveness because the State did not augment or add a charge by announcing its intent to seek the death penalty after an indictment for first-degree murder, and the alleged conduct occurred in the pretrial setting.
3. The State did not act vindictively by rescinding outstanding plea offers when Hodges remained free to accept or reject them and no plea agreement had been reached.
4. Hodges had not yet presented the requisite objective evidence that the State acted solely to punish him for exercising a constitutional right, although the circuit court could require an on-the-record response if such objective evidence were later presented.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court could require the elected prosecuting attorney and an associate prosecutor to testify at a pretrial hearing regarding the rationale for seeking the death penalty.
2. Whether Hodges's allegations that the State withdrew plea offers and filed notice of intent to seek the death penalty after he asserted a mental-disease-or-defect defense and elected to proceed to trial established a presumption or realistic likelihood of prosecutorial vindictiveness.
3. Whether compelling the prosecutors to testify would cause irreparable harm by requiring disclosure of privileged prosecutorial work product.

Disposition

writ_granted