Date: 06-04-2022

Case Style:

State of Missouri vs. Jeffery Jerome Millens, Jr.

Case Number: WD84274

Judge:

Lisa White Hardwick

Daniel R. Green

Court:

MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

On appeal from The Cole County Circuit Court

Plaintiff's Attorney: Evan J. Buchheim

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best St. Louis, MO Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

Counselor:

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.


MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge


Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

St. Louis, MO - Criminal Defense lawyer represented defendant with appealing second-degree murder, armed criminal action, and the unlawful possession of a firearm charges.

In the light most favorable to the verdict, the following facts were adduced
at trial: On December 31, 2016, Millens attended a party at Georden Qualls’s
home. At the time, Millens was wearing a red coat and had shoulder length
dreadlocks. The home was sparsely lit. At some point, Qualls observed
Quonterio Davis fighting with a man who appeared to have dreadlocks and was
wearing a red coat. Qualls further testified that, “when the fight broke out,” he
heard someone say Millens’s name. Qualls saw a gun “as much as he wanted to
see it,” and heard gunshots, which caused Qualls to flee to another room.
Dimitri Barnes, who was in a relationship with Davis and who shared a child
with Millens, was in a separate room when the shooting occurred. After the
shooting stopped, Kristen Andrews, Millens’s cousin, warned Barnes to hide
because “it’s Jeff [Millens].” Barnes assumed that Andrews had warned her to
hide because she and Millens had been on bad terms since the birth of their child.
Andrews was also in another room when she heard arguing and heard
Millens say “bitch,” which prompted her to run towards the argument. As she
reached an entrance to the room where the fight was happening, she saw muzzle
flashes and heard gunshots. In the confusion, she collided with another party
guest. After Andrews reoriented herself, she saw Millens with his arms raised
standing near Davis, who was on the floor “gasping for air.” Millens looked at
Andrews but said nothing, and “[Millens] left, but he didn’t run. He didn’t – he
just looked at [Andrews].”
3
Andrews informed officers that Millens was the shooter, and officers
arrested Millens later that night. Millens initially told detectives that he was at his
girlfriend’s house and had a flat tire, but he eventually admitted that he attended
the party. He further denied knowing Davis, which he also later recanted. Officers
attempted to perform a test to determine if gunshot residue was present on
Millens, but he resisted. The test was eventually performed, and the results
showed elements consistent with gunshot residue. One of Millens’s dreadlocks
had also fallen off and was recovered in the room where the shooting occurred.
Millens was charged with second-degree murder, armed criminal action,
and illegal use of a firearm. A jury trial was held. During voir dire, Millens’s trial
counsel asked if any potential jurors had previously known Millens. Juror number
23 remained silent. After trial, Millens filed a motion for a new trial in which he
argued, in part, that juror number 23 committed misconduct by failing to disclose
that she knew Millens. Millens’s motion contained only general allegations that
juror number 23 knew him and that he did not recognize her sooner because she
wore a mask in the courtroom. Millens issued a subpoena duces tecum to
summon juror number 23 to testify. The State filed a motion to quash the
subpoena on the ground that Millens had not alleged facts indicating that the juror
actually knew him. At sentencing, Millens’s counsel argued that, “[a]fter the trial
was concluded, Mr. Millens advised my office that he recognized juror No. 23 and
realized that she had been living across the street from him and his mother at one
point.” The circuit court granted the State’s motion to quash the subpoena duces
4
tecum, denied Millens’s motion for new trial, and sentenced Millens to
consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for second-degree murder, and 10
years each for armed criminal action and the unlawful use of a firearm. Millens
appeals.
ANALYSIS
In Points I and II, Millens contends the verdict was unsupported by sufficient
evidence that he shot Davis and that he ever shot a firearm. Our review of a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is “limited to
determining whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror
might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v.
Naylor, 510 S.W.3d 855, 859 (Mo. banc 2017) (internal citation and quotations
omitted). “This is not an assessment of whether this [c]ourt believes that the
evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but rather a question
of whether, in light of the evidence most favorable to the State, any rational factfinder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). We do not reweigh the
evidence but, instead, accept as true all evidence and inferences supporting guilt
and ignore all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. at 858-59.
Millens contends the jury’s verdict rests on “unreasonable inference and
speculation.” He argues the State’s witnesses all saw the events surrounding the
shooting, but that none could testify that they unequivocally saw him shoot Davis.
To support his argument, Millens relies on State v. Lehman, 617 S.W.3d 843, 849
5
(Mo. banc 2021), a case in which our Supreme Court reversed a conviction based
on insufficient evidence. In Lehman, the defendant was charged with loitering
within 500 feet of a public park after having been convicted of incest in another
State. Id. at 844-45. The only piece of evidence indicating that the defendant was
within 500 feet of a public park was a police report indicating that the defendant
was at a location “near” a park. Id. at 845. The Court found that the term “near,”
without support from additional evidence, was too subjective to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant was within 500 feet of a public park. Id. at
849-50.
Millens argues the circumstances of his case are similar to those in Lehman
because the State’s evidence merely places him near the shooting, which he
contends is insufficient to support the verdict. We disagree. Unlike in Lehman,
where a single, ambiguous article of evidence was offered to demonstrate the
defendant’s proximity to the park, the State in this case offered ample evidence
that not only indicates that Millens was near the shooting but also allows for the
reasonable inference that he was, in fact, the shooter.
Qualls testified that he saw someone matching Millens’s description
fighting with Davis immediately before the shooting occurred and that someone
said Millens’s name as the fight broke out. Qualls saw a gun and heard the
gunshots that resulted in Davis’s death. Qualls’s testimony allows for the
reasonable inference that Millens was fighting with, and ultimately shot, Davis.
Andrews’s testimony and statements to police allow for a similar inference.
6
Andrews testified that she heard arguing and that she heard Millens say “bitch”
from that area, which allows for the reasonable inference that Millens was
involved in the argument. Andrews also testified that she ran into the room
during the shooting to see Millens standing with his arms raised near the recently
shot Davis. Andrews selected Millens from a photographic lineup as the man
standing near Davis with his arm raised.
Additionally, Millens had gunshot residue on his person, allowing for the
reasonable inference that he recently shot a firearm, and he had lost a dreadlock
in the room where the shooting occurred, indicating his immediate proximity to
the shooting. Millens’s own conduct after the shooting further supports an
inference of guilt as he walked, rather than ran, away from an active shooting,
resisted when officers sought to obtain a gunshot residue sample, and he
admitted to lying to detectives about his whereabouts that evening. Millens’s lack
of alarm to the shooting allows for an inference that he was not alarmed because
he was the shooter, and his attempt to hide his whereabouts infers a guilty
conscience. See State v. Buchli, 152 S.W.3d 289, 297 (Mo. App. 2004) (“Guilt may
be inferred when an accused attempts to deceive the police, as in making a false
exculpatory statement”).
Millens argues at length about the unreasonableness of the inferences
drawn from the evidence. In doing so, he asks us to depart from our standard of
review and consider adverse evidence and inferences that do not support the
verdict. Millens argues that multiple people at the party had dreadlocks and red
7
coats, so any witness identification on those grounds is ineffectual; that Andrews
was intoxicated during the party, impeaching her credibility; that, at trial, Andrews
recanted her prior identification of him as the shooter; that his lying to detectives
about his whereabouts was “understandable” because he was scared; and that
the sum of the evidence merely demonstrates that he was “a bystander to the
fight.” These arguments rely on either evidence or inferences adverse to the
verdict, which we may not consider, or they run contrary to the jury’s credibility
determinations, which we will not disturb on appeal. Naylor, 510 S.W.3d at 858-
59. Without more, and without departing from the appropriate standard of
review, Millens has neither rebutted the evidence nor the multiple reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom that he shot Davis with a firearm. We find that the
evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Points I and II are denied.
In Point III, Millens contends the circuit court abused its discretion in
granting the State’s motion to quash Millens’s subpoena duces tecum for juror
number 23 and denying his motion for new trial based on juror misconduct. “A
trial court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” State v.
Davis, 318 S.W.3d 618, 630 (Mo. banc 2010); State ex rel. Poker v. Kramer, 216
S.W.3d 670, 672 (Mo. banc 2007) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to the
denial of a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum). “The trial court abuses its
discretion when its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances before it
and when the ruling is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock our sense of
8
justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration. State v. Garvey, 328 S.W.3d
408, 417 (Mo. App. 2010).
Millens argues that, because the court quashed his subpoena, he was
unable to present evidence supporting his claim of juror misconduct and was
thereby deprived of the opportunity to prove his allegation. Millens supports his
argument that his subpoena should have been enforced with the conclusory
assertion that:
Because Mr. Millens raised the issue of juror misconduct in his timely
motion for a new trial, and because Mr. Millens subpoenaed Juror
No. 23 to testify at the hearing on his motion for a new trial, the court
abused its discretion in quashing the subpoena and denying the
motion for a new trial.
“Rule 26.02 vests the trial court with broad discretion in determining
whether good cause exists for the enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum.”
State ex rel. St. Louis Cty. v. Block, 622 S.W.2d 367, 369 (Mo. App. 1981). The
party seeking enforcement bears the burden to show good cause. See id.; State
ex rel. Phelps v. McQueen, 296 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Mo. banc 1956). Although Millens
did generally allege in his motion for new trial that juror number 23 knew him,
those allegations did not include any factual allegations indicating when, where,
or how juror number 23 knew him. Indeed, Millens’s motion did not contain any
factual allegations beyond that he recognized juror number 23 after the trial had
ended. Millens did not allege how he knew juror number 23, or that she had any
reason to know him. What caused him to realize post-trial that he knew juror
number 23?
9
In arguing against the motion to quash at sentencing, Millens’s counsel
further asserted that Millens recognized that juror number 23 had lived near him
and his mother “at one point.” In response, the State argued that Millens failed to
allege sufficient facts indicating that juror number 23 actually knew him. After
hearing the arguments, the court granted the motion to quash.
Millens does not support his sparse allegations of juror misconduct with
relevant caselaw or additional facts in the record; rather, he argues at length that,
assuming his subpoena was enforceable, his inability to call juror number 23 to
testify caused the circuit court to inappropriately deny his motion for new trial
without hearing any evidence. This argument does not remedy the lack of good
cause shown to enforce the subpoena, and it ignores that Millens or his mother, if
available, could have testified to their relationship with juror number 23, or
Millens could have deposed juror number 23 prior to the hearing. The argument
also ignores that Millens could have included far greater allegations of fact from
his own experience of allegedly knowing juror number 23 to show why the
subpoena should be enforced. With only a single, vague factual allegation
supporting an inference that juror number 23 knew Millens for the court to
consider, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s
motion to quash the subpoena. Moreover, because Millens subsequently failed to
produce any evidence to support his contention of juror misconduct, the court did
not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for new trial on this basis. Point III
is denied.
10
In Point IV, Millens contends that the circuit court committed a clerical error
in its written sentence that requires correction. At sentencing, the circuit court
pronounced that Millens was to be sentenced to life imprisonment for seconddegree murder. The circuit court’s written judgment, however, imposes a
sentence of “999 Years.” The parties agree that the oral pronouncement controls
under these circumstances and that the judgment does not accurately reflect the
actual sentence imposed. See Johnson v. State, 446 S.W.3d 274, 276 (Mo. App.
2014). The parties further agree that the appropriate remedy is an order nunc pro
tunc under Rule 29.12(c) to correct the error in the judgment. State v. Bjorgo, 571
S.W.3d 651, 660-61 (Mo. App. 2019) (where we issued a “limited remand” with
instructions for the circuit court to correct its judgment to reflect the sentence
actually imposed). Rule 29.12(c) proscribes, “Clerical mistakes in judgments,
orders or other parts of the record and errors in the record arising from oversight
or omission may be corrected by the court at any time after such notice, if any, as
the court orders.”
The sole disagreement between the parties is the appropriate procedure for
correcting the judgment. The State argues that we need not issue a limited
remand and that we may correct the judgment ourselves under Rule 84.14, a
procedure that we utilized in Pittman v. State, 331 S.W.3d 361, 368 n*2 (Mo. App.
2011). In Pittman, however, we noted that the “unusual” decision to amend the
judgment under Rule 84.14 was made in light of the case’s unique procedural
11
circumstances, which are not present here.1
Id. Accordingly, we find a limited
remand for the purpose of correcting the written sentence appropriate under the
circumstances in this case. See Bjorgo, 571 S.W.3d at 660-61. Point IV is granted.

Outcome: The judgment is affirmed; however, we issue a limited remand with
directions that the circuit court enter an order nunc pro tunc correcting the written sentence and judgment with respect to Millens’s conviction for second-degree murder to reflect a sentence of life imprisonment rather than “999 Years.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: