## Facts

- In 1992, Kenneth Baumruk appeared in St. Louis County Circuit Court for a dissolution proceeding involving his wife, Mary Baumruk.
- Baumruk brought two .38 caliber handguns to court in his briefcase.
- After a conflict-of-interest discussion was placed on the record in open court, Baumruk drew the guns and shot Mary, her attorney, and Kenneth’s attorney; he then shot Mary again at close range, killing her.
- Baumruk also fired at and pursued the presiding judge into the courthouse hallway and continued shooting as others fled or sought cover.
- The courthouse shooting received extensive local publicity and was closely associated with courthouse security and the administration of justice in the county.
- Baumruk was initially prosecuted but found incompetent to stand trial; those proceedings were later dismissed while he remained incompetent.
- In 1998, prosecutors obtained a new multi-count indictment, including first-degree murder for Mary’s death.
- In 2001, in St. Louis County, a jury convicted Baumruk of first-degree murder and recommended the death penalty; the trial court imposed death.
- Baumruk appealed, challenging (among other claims) the permissibility of reindictment after the earlier incompetency dismissal and the denial of a change of venue from St. Louis County.

## Issues

1. Whether a prior finding of incompetency to stand trial and dismissal of earlier charges barred a later indictment for the same offenses.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a change of venue from St. Louis County given the courthouse location of the crime and extensive publicity.

## Decision

- The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the conviction and death sentence and remanded.
- The court held that the earlier incompetency finding and dismissal did not bar later prosecution upon restoration of competency.
- The court held that denying a change of venue was an abuse of discretion in the circumstances presented.
- The case was remanded with directions to grant a change of venue and conduct further proceedings in a different county.

## Legal Principles

- A finding of incompetency to stand trial is not an adjudication of guilt or innocence and does not itself trigger double-jeopardy protections against later prosecution.
- Dismissal of charges following continued incompetency does not necessarily preclude reindictment for the same offenses once the defendant becomes competent, consistent with Missouri’s statutory scheme and due process limits.
- A change of venue is required when prejudice in the county makes a fair trial unlikely; review is for abuse of discretion.
- In rare circumstances, the combination of extraordinary local publicity and the crime’s direct connection to the local courthouse and legal community can create an unacceptable risk of inherent prejudice that voir dire alone cannot cure.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that Baumruk could be reindicted after an earlier incompetency-related dismissal, but it reversed his conviction and death sentence because trying a notorious courthouse shooting in the same county created an intolerable risk of prejudice, requiring a change of venue.


State v. Baumruk, 85 S.W.3d 644 (Mo. 2002) (en banc)