## Facts

- In over 100 pending criminal cases, defendants served written discovery requests under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 25.03(A), seeking information about the State’s intended witnesses.
- The Circuit Attorney objected to producing various witness and victim identifiers (including last known addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and social security numbers) and moved for protective orders under Rule 25.11 in numerous cases.
- The circuit judge conducted in camera hearings and, depending on the case, granted some protective orders and denied others.
- In every case, the circuit judge ordered removal of social security numbers from police reports or other discovery produced.
- The circuit judge rejected the prosecutor’s constitutional challenge to Rule 25.03 and required disclosure of “names and last known addresses” of intended witnesses, subject to discretionary protective orders.
- The Circuit Attorney sought mandamus directing the circuit judge to declare Rule 25.03 unconstitutional under Missouri’s crime-victims-rights provision (Mo. Const. art. I, § 32) or to grant broader protective orders limiting disclosure of identifying information.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 25.03 violates crime victims’ rights under Mo. Const. art. I, § 32 by requiring disclosure of victim and witness identifying information.
2. What identifying information Rule 25.03 requires the State to disclose about intended witnesses.
3. Whether the circuit judge abused discretion under Rule 25.11 by denying (or only partially granting) protective orders restricting disclosure of witness and victim identifiers.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held Rule 25.03 constitutional and refused to mandate categorical protective orders based on a general victims’-rights theory.
- The court held the circuit judge misinterpreted Rule 25.03 by treating it as requiring disclosure beyond the specific categories the rule enumerates.
- The court applied abuse-of-discretion review to the protective-order rulings and generally upheld the circuit judge’s case-by-case determinations, including the requirement to redact social security numbers.
- The court quashed the preliminary writ in part and made it permanent in part, granting mandamus only to correct the erroneous interpretation of Rule 25.03’s disclosure scope.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 25.03 does not violate Mo. Const. art. I, § 32; victims’ rights must be read consistently with criminal discovery rules.
- Rule 25.03 requires disclosure of the categories it specifies (including names and last known addresses of intended witnesses) and does not, by its terms, compel production of all personal identifying information the State possesses.
- Rule 25.11 authorizes protective orders for good cause, allowing trial courts to restrict discovery to address witness safety and privacy concerns.
- Mandamus is appropriate to correct a clear misinterpretation of a governing rule; protective-order determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a facial victims’-rights attack on Rule 25.03 and declined to compel blanket protective orders, but it granted limited mandamus to correct the trial court’s overbroad reading of what Rule 25.03 requires the State to disclose about witnesses, while otherwise deferring to the trial court’s discretionary protective-order rulings under Rule 25.11.


State ex rel. Joyce v. Mullen, 503 S.W.3d 330 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2016)