Opinion ID: 2466628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Testimony of Stephanie Ray About Phone Call

Text: Bucklew next claims that the trial court erred in overruling his objection and request for a mistrial because of an alleged prosecutorial discovery violation under Rule 25.03(A)(2). Bucklew claims that the state failed to reveal the substance of a phone conversation between Bucklew and Stephanie Ray. Ray testified that in a telephone conversation on March 7, 1996, Bucklew threatened her life, the lives of her children and the murder victim, Michael Sanders. Rule 25.03(A)(2) requires the state, upon motion, to provide the defense with [a]ny written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant. This duty to disclose is not discretionary and is continuing. State v. Smothers, 605 S.W.2d 128, 131 (Mo. banc 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1000, 101 S.Ct. 1708, 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981). At trial, the prosecutor asked Ray about a phone call she received from Bucklew while she was at work. Defense counsel objected and both counsel approached the bench. The following colloquy occurred: AT THE BENCH Defense: I just wanted to specifically object to the contents of this phone call as evidence of other crimes and irrelevant to the charges that we're trying. Prosecution: I expect the answer to be that he told her he was going to kill her and her children and cut her children up in front of her. Court: The objection will be overruled. OPEN COURT Q [by prosecution]: Stephanie, would you go ahead and describe for the jury what Russell Bucklew told you in that phone call on March 7, 1996? A: He said that he knew I'd been cheating on him and that he would, if he ever seen Michael around me again, he said he'd kill him and me and all the kids. So he said he'd kill us all is what he said.    AT THE BENCH Defense: I'm sorry. But I believed that statement that she just made included a threat towards Mike. And I believe that's contrary to what the expected testimony was. I mean I don't think she said the phone call, previously claimed that this phone call included a threat towards Mike. Prosecution: That's something you could impeach her about. That's the first time I've heard it too.    Defense: And also my objection is it's a statement of the defendant, hasn't been disclosed under Rule 25 because she's claiming that in this phone call at Ceramo [Ray's place of employment] there was a threat against Mike. I believe that's what she just said. Prosecution: I can only disclose what I have been told and I have, you can impeach it.    Court: The objection is overruled. Defense: Ask for a mistrial Court: That request is denied. Rule 25.03 does not require the state to disclose what it does not have. State v. Johnston, 957 S.W.2d 734, 749 (Mo. banc 1997). The state did not violate the rule. We next turn to Bucklew's claim of prejudice. He asserts that learning of the telephone conversation at trial deprived him the opportunity to obtain telephone records to show whether the call was made at all. We find no prejudice. Bucklew knew of the telephone conversation all along. He participated in it. It was only the threat to Sanders that he now claims was new information. Obtaining the telephone records would shed no light on the contents of the conversation. Bucklew also claims he could have crafted an alternative defense had he known of Ray's testimony beforehand. However, he does not indicate the nature of what that defense might have been nor successfully articulate the prejudice that flowed from not presenting it. Indeed, this testimony is less damaging than the testimony of Michael Sanders's son that Bucklew pulled a knife on Sanders at their first meeting and told him to get out of Ray's trailer. The point is denied.