Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Corliss F. Mack, Jr., Appellant.

Decision date: May 25, 2021ED108483

Parties & Roles

Judges

Opinion Author
Lisa P. Page
Trial Court Judge
Michael W

Disposition

Affirmed

Procedural posture: Appeal from jury trial conviction for murder and armed criminal action

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar criminal law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ED108483 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) the City of St. Louis v. ) 1822-CR02030-01 ) CORLISS F. MACK, JR., ) Honorable Michael W. Noble ) Appellant. ) Filed: may 25, 2021

Corliss F. Mack, Jr. (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment, following a jury trial, convicting him of two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action. He was sentenced to four, concurrent 20-year sentences. We affirm. BACKGROUND The State of Missouri (State) charged Appellant and his co-defendant, Qiana Fletcher (Co-Defendant), with two counts of the class A felony of first-degree murder (Counts I and III) and two counts of the unclassified felony of armed criminal action (Counts II and IV) for knowingly causing the death of Ira Johnson (Johnson) and Sylvester Caston (Caston) with a deadly weapon. They were also charged with first-degree robbery (Count V), first-degree kidnapping (Count VII), and additional counts of armed criminal action (Counts VI and VIII) for events occurring on May 19, 2018.

2

Prior to trial, Appellant and Co-Defendant each filed a motion to sever Appellant's case from Co-Defendant's case to hold separate trials. Appellant's motion was based on Co- Defendant's out-of-court statement to police, which then denied her presence in the alleged incidents. The court denied the motions, finding both Appellant and Co-Defendant would be arguing they were victims, not perpetrators, and these defenses were not inherently irreconcilable. Appellant also filed a motion in limine to prevent introduction of Co-Defendant's statement to police, which was agreed to by consent, unless it was offered as impeachment evidence. The court noted if the statement became an issue, they would discuss it outside of the presence of the jury. A trial took place September 23-27, 2019. The State presented Keyshia Harris (Witness) as its first witness, followed by several detectives and law enforcement officers, the property manager for Shepherd Apartments, and a woman who lived in the area and testified she heard gunshots. For the defense, Appellant testified but Co-Defendant did not. This case considers the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal; thus, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding any contrary evidence and inferences. State v. Stewart, 560 S.W.3d 531, 533 (Mo. banc 2018). The evidence adduced at trial is as follows. Witness and Appellant knew each other "almost over twenty years," and he was a cousin of her niece and nephews. Witness admitted she regularly sold heroin to Appellant. On May 19, 2018, at approximately 6 p.m., she had delivered "a fourth" of heroin to Appellant. Later, at 8:44 p.m., Appellant called Witness to trade her some marijuana for more heroin. Witness could not find any heroin but decided to meet and offer Appellant $80 for the marijuana. She drove to Appellant's apartment building where she usually met him in the parking lot, but this time Appellant met her in the street. He was with a woman whom Witness did not know but was later

3

identified as Co-Defendant. Appellant walked up to Witness's car and sat in the front passenger seat. Shortly thereafter, Co-Defendant sat behind Appellant in the rear passenger seat. Witness recalled Appellant saying, "Sis[,] she want it," and Co-Defendant moved around to get something out of her pocket. Co-Defendant then pulled out a "little bitty small little . . . black gun," "put the gun up to [Witness]," and said, "[B]----, give it up, because this is your last night anyway." Co-Defendant was wearing blue latex gloves. Witness believed Co-Defendant meant she would kill her, so Witness gave her the $80. Appellant did not say a word. Co-Defendant told Witness to make a U-turn, and continue driving until she drove up to two men in the street where Co-Defendant ordered Witness to stop. The two men, later identified as Johnson and Caston, walked up to Witness's car. Caston punched Witness in the face, threw her into the back seat, then sat down next to her. Johnson sat in the driver's seat. They also wore blue latex gloves, but Appellant did not. They told Witness to take them to her house. Appellant, still in the front passenger seat, spoke to Witness for the first time since the two men joined them and said, "[T]ell them where you stay because they are going to kill us." She told them Grand and Natural Bridge, but that was not where she lived. Johnson drove the car to the East Side in Illinois. They stopped near a wooded area where Caston ordered Co- Defendant to strip-search Witness while Appellant and Johnson searched her car. Co-Defendant told Witness that "[she] like[d] everything about [Witness] [] because [she'd] had this gun on [Witness], and [she] once not [sic] beg for [her] life." They returned to the car and drove back to St. Louis. Witness said she was mad at Appellant and was "going off on him" for doing this to her. Johnson "just kept on talking" and said Appellant had nothing to do with this, but Witness did not believe him. She believed "[Appellant] was part of it" because he was "the one that called [her]" and she did not know the

4

others. They arrived in St. Louis approximately an hour after they left. Witness thought "everything was over" and she was going to be released. Johnson stopped the car in the street and Appellant, Co- Defendant, and Caston got out and walked a little way down the street together. Witness and Johnson remained in the car, and Johnson told her she needed to get out of "whatever [she] [was] doing" because it was "not for [her]." Appellant returned to the car, sat in the front passenger seat and shot Johnson in the head. Witness testified Appellant used the same gun that Co-Defendant held throughout the night. She said, "[Johnson] never had a gun" and that she only saw one gun the whole time. Witness further testified that Appellant got out of the car and ran down the street in the same direction he previously went with Co-Defendant and Caston. Witness was hiding for cover and scared when she heard approximately five gunshots from the same direction. Witness hid in a backyard for a short time, then came out to find her car was gone. She was crying and was walking to a gas station with some kids when Appellant drove her car up beside her with Co- Defendant in the passenger seat. He told her, "Sis, sis, get in, I did that for you." Witness replied, "ah, no you didn't," and ran to the gas station to call the police. The police responded at approximately 10:15 or 10:30 p.m. They found Johnson's dead body in the street with a gunshot wound to his right ear, $80 cash in his pocket, and loose change in another pocket. They found Caston lying dead on a sidewalk around the corner with five gunshot wounds, including one to the left side of his chest that caused his death. Both victims were still wearing blue latex gloves. Police found a cluster of seven cartridge casings approximately 30 to 40 feet down the street from Johnson. They were all .380 caliber and were later determined to have been fired from the same firearm.

5

Witness testified that she found her car the next morning after Appellant and his cousin told her where it was. Johnson's blood was visible on the driver's seat. Police found a cartridge casing in the map pocket of the front passenger door, which was a .380 caliber and was determined to have been fired from the same firearm as the casings that were found at the murder scene in the street. They found lip gloss on the front passenger seat and an inhaler on the rear passenger seat, which contained DNA consistent with Co-Defendant's. Police also found a blue latex glove on the front passenger floorboard, which contained a mixture of DNA, including DNA consistent with Johnson. Surveillance cameras around Appellant's apartment building continuously recorded footage, which was reviewed and used to create still photographs that were admitted into evidence. One photograph showed three men, whom Witness identified as Appellant with Johnson and Caston, in the lobby of the building at 8:09 p.m. Johnson and Caston were recorded exiting through the lobby at 9:03 p.m. Appellant and Co-Defendant were recorded exiting through the lobby at 9:06 p.m. Johnson and Caston were recorded walking north past the building at 9:21 p.m., and Witness's vehicle was recorded driving in that direction four minutes later at 9:25 p.m. Witness's vehicle was again recorded driving in that direction, toward the location where it was ultimately found, at 10:36 p.m., at the same time Witness was speaking with the police. Appellant and Co-Defendant were recorded approaching the building three minutes later at 10:39 p.m. and re-entered the building at 10:40 p.m. A box with blue latex gloves identical to the ones worn by Johnson and Caston was found in the apartment where Appellant lived, even though he did not wear any blue latex gloves during the incident. Caston's "live-in girlfriend" told the detectives that Caston kept a .380

6

caliber handgun in his nightstand and that she noticed it was gone at some point after she last saw Johnson and Caston leave the house on the night of the incident around 7 p.m. Appellant testified that Caston was friends with his uncle. He would come over to their apartment and sometimes sold heroin to him. Appellant occasionally saw Caston with a gun, and previously told Appellant he had executed someone in retaliation for having been shot by the person. Appellant said Caston had the reputation as "somebody that you [don't] want to mess with," and robbing drug dealers. Appellant said Caston and Johnson came to his apartment and "got high" on the day in question. Appellant said Co-Defendant, with whom he had a sexual relationship, was also present. Appellant said he called Witness to buy more heroin. She called him back and told him to come outside around 9 p.m. Appellant said he and Co-Defendant got in Witness's car, but that Johnson and Caston "left out, like, right before [him]" and denied knowing where they went. Appellant's story then differed from Witness in that he claimed he paid Witness $80 for heroin, which he obtained from the console of her vehicle. He said Witness asked Appellant to "ride with [her] real quick" and she would give him something else. Appellant said Witness made a U-turn to where Johnson and Caston were standing. He said he did not know they were going to be there and had no idea what they were planning to do. Appellant said Caston got in and pulled out a gun, told Witness to let Johnson in, and pulled Witness back through the middle of the car. He said, "[I]f anybody make [sic] any move, it's going to be . . . open cases and closed caskets." Appellant testified that Johnson drove them to the East Side and Caston said he had to search Witness because he knew she had some more dope. Appellant said Caston tried to make Co-Defendant search her, but she wouldn't do it, so he told Co-Defendant, "I got something for you, too." He said Caston had the gun while they were driving, but handed it to Johnson when

7

they stopped in a parking lot so that Caston could strip-search Witness. Appellant denied that Co-Defendant had the gun, wore latex gloves, or participated in a robbery. He said Johnson opened the console and removed some change while Caston was searching Witness. Johnson kept the gun while doing so, and while he drove them back to St. Louis. Appellant said that when they stopped the car, Johnson pointed the gun

Full opinion text continues in the plain-text archive copy.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Cases

Holdings

Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.

AI-generated
  1. Issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by responding with an admonition to be guided by the instruction as given when the jury questioned, "If we can't agree on robbery, can we convict on manslaughter with ACA."

    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in directing the jury to be guided by the instructions as given, as the instructions were proper, clear, and unambiguous, and the jury's subsequent verdict demonstrated they resolved any confusion.

    Standard of review: abuse of discretion

  2. Issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's request for a mistrial after family members yelled from the gallery in jurors' presence.

    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial, as it seriously considered and immediately addressed the concerns, questioned each juror who denied hearing the comments, and took proactive steps to eliminate further outbursts.

    Standard of review: abuse of discretion

  3. Issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to sever his trial from Co-Defendant's trial, where Co-Defendant's out-of-court statement denying her presence was allegedly inconsistent and irreconcilable with Appellant's defense of lawful defense of others.

    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance because the defenses were not irreconcilable, the jury was presumed to follow instructions to consider defendants separately, and Appellant's own testimony was sufficient for conviction.

    Standard of review: abuse of discretion

  4. Issue: Whether the trial court erred in overruling Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, specifically regarding the State's failure to disprove sudden passion.

    The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find Appellant did not act under the influence of sudden passion, given conflicting testimony and evidence of consciousness of guilt.

    Standard of review: sufficiency of the evidence

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.