Second change-of-judge case sent to Supreme Court

The Court of Appeals Southern District has asked the Missouri Supreme Court to determine whether a judge should continue presiding over a criminal case to which the high court itself assigned him.

The procedurally quirky appeal stems from the case against Cara M. Dillinger, who is accused of tampering with physical evidence in a felony prosecution. Her attorney, Steven Walsh of the Walsh Law Firm in Poplar Bluff, said she witnessed a bar brawl in the city of Bernie and that another woman to whom his client was talking unplugged a video surveillance system.

The case initially was filed in Stoddard County, but both the prosecution and the defense agreed to move the case to Butler County and to have it heard by Judge Michael Pritchett, who was the circuit judge for the 36th Circuit.

However, Pritchett retired in 2023 and was succeeded by Judge Kacey Proctor. Shortly after Proctor took over the case, Walsh sought a change of judge. The Missouri Attorney General’s Office, which is serving as a special prosecutor on the case, objected. Missouri court rules permit defendants to have one change of judge without cause, and the attorney general argued that Dillinger had already gotten it.

Proctor nonetheless sustained the defendant’s motion and filed a request for the Supreme Court to reassign the case. The Supreme Court ordered Butler County Associate Circuit Judge C. Wade Pierce to take over.

The attorney general’s office sought a writ from the Southern District, which halted the case and issued an opinion on March 19 agreeing that the case should not have moved to a new judge.

“Defendant exhausted the right to one change of judge when the joint stipulation to the change of judge to Judge Pritchett was filed,” Judge Mary W. Sheffield wrote. “Judge Pritchett’s retirement and the subsequent appointment of Respondent Proctor did not give Defendant a second bite of the apple.”

But, Sheffield added, there was nothing the Court of Appeals could do about it. The Supreme Court had already transferred the case to Pierce, she said, “and we are unaware of authority permitting this Court to disregard that designation.”

The Southern District transferred the writ case to the Supreme Court, citing the “general interest and importance of the questions involved in the case.” Chief Judge Jack A.L. Goodman and Judge Jennifer R. Growcock concurred.

It’s not clear if the Supreme Court will hear the appeal and issue a precedential opinion or if it will simply reassign the underlying case. Walsh, who said the matter wasn’t worth fighting, already has consented to returning the case to Proctor.

“It’s kind of like law school all over again,” he said.

He added that the charge against his client is “absurd.”

“We’re confident that if it goes to trial, she’s going to be all right,” he said. “But it’s kind of difficult to get there.”

The attorney general’s office didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

The case is State ex rel. Bailey v. Pierce, SD38412.