STATE v. DERRICK (2026)

Cadilac Derrick appeals his convictions for voluntary manslaughter, first-degree involuntary manslaughter, second-degree domestic assault, and two counts of armed criminal action. In two points on appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in improperly joining the domestic assault and endangering the welfare of a child charges for events occurring in August 2022 with murder and armed criminal action charges based on a November 2022 incident, and also erred in denying his motion to sever the charges. The judgment is affirmed.

Background

Derrick was charged by information in lieu of indictment with two counts of murder in the first degree (Counts 1 and 3), two counts of armed criminal action (Counts 2 and 4), domestic assault in the second degree (Count 5), and endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree (Count 6). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence at trial showed the following.¹

On August 17, 2022, Columbia police responded to a domestic disturbance call at an apartment. When they arrived, they found L.S. (“Victim 1”) and her nine-month-old baby. Victim 1 told police that she was sleeping in her bed when Derrick, the father of her child, came in and started choking her. She said that he punched her in the side of the face and in the abdomen. The police officers observed redness and red marks on Victim's neck and abdomen.²

Later that night, Victim 1 texted Derrick, “U can keep them tmr idk but we can't work after how u did me.” Derrick responded, “At the end of the day u mine still period[.]” He added, “U gonna always be mine [n****.]” He also texted, “I'm telling u what it is[,]” and “Mfs gone die before u walk away[.]” He ended with, “Try me[.]”

The next day, on August 18, 2022, Victim 1 texted Derrick, “No, you ruined it,” and “you [f***ed] up my ribs and body. I'm hella marked up, in pain, barely could do anything.” He responded, “Babe, I promise I won't hurt you no more.”

A day later, on August 19, 2022, Derrick texted Victim 1, “Either we gonna be together or I'm killing us both[,]” and “Don't test me[.]” Alluding to the murder of Victim 1's mother by her father, Derrick texted, “U wanna do me like you mom did your dad[,]” “Ok watch what happen[,]” and “This must be what you want to happen[.]” Derrick continued, “I'm give u that then[.]” After Victim 1 threatened to expose those texts, Derrick texted, “Ur not leaving me period[.]” Victim 1 responded, “Need help you will never change I'll never come back now[.]”

Derrick then texted, “If u don't want me then I know its cuz of somebody else and I'm gonna shoot u in the head[.]” Later in the text chain, Derrick said, “That's what I'm gonna do if u trying to leave me[.]” Derrick continued, “U done [f***ed] Paul and now u acting like this[,]” and “U gonna die[.]” He said, “I'm trying to work it out before u lose your life[,]” “U need to think about all this because I will be outside your job with my Ak and shoot u[,]” and “U won't even see it coming[.]”

Derrick sent Victim 1 other threatening texts in August 2022 including, “If you don't want to deal with me, you going to be dealing with violence[,]” “Try me and watch how savage I turn up[,]” “You my girl, been that way for years. Until our son is grown, you ain't going nowhere[,]” “If I see you trying to be with anyone, I'm shooting until everybody dead[,]” “That's on my kid's life. You not being with nobody but me. Don't test me in that[,]” “It won't be funny when you bleeding with a gunshot wound, stop playing with me[,]” and “We ain't ever breaking up. Simple.”

After the August 2022 incident, Victim 1 obtained an ex parte order of protection against Derrick.

About two and a half months later, on November 5, 2022, at 9 p.m., Victim 1 called her biological grandmother, L.M. (“Victim 2”), who raised her and whom she considered her mother. At 9:58 p.m., Victim 1 texted Victim 2, “I'm ready to leave this mf.” After several more exchanges, at 10:24 p.m. Victim 2 texted, “Do I need to come get you and the baby?” Victim 1 answered, “U can jus don't want him on Bs.” Victim 1 also added, “Don't want him tryna hurt u either.”

At 10:31 p.m., Victim 2 texted, “Girl bye I'm not tf scared of that piece of shit.” She later asks, “Where does he keep your house key at?” and Victim 1 answered, “Key chain.” Victim 1 then texted, “I have to hurry I text so he don't see.” She then asked, “Wya[,]” meaning “Where you at?” Victim 2's last text to Victim 1 was “I'm tryna hurry.”

In the time between Victim 2's last text and 10:48 p.m., Victim 2 arrived at Victim 1's residence. At 10:48 p.m., Victim 1 called 911 and reported that Derrick was abusing her, was refusing to give her his house key, was refusing to leave her house, was beating her, was threatening to kill her and her mother if she did not stay with him, was armed with a gun in his pocket and that she was scared. During the call and just after Victim 1 told the 911 operator that Derrick was armed with a gun, Victim 1 said, “Mom, don't touch his gun.” She then said, “What are you doing? Do you not see the baby?” and “Mom! No! No!” followed immediately by the sound of three gunshots, then, “No!” and a fourth gunshot. After a fifth gunshot, Victim 1 was not heard speaking again. After a brief pause, moaning was heard. There was no reply when the 911 operator asked Victim 1 if she was still there with her. More moaning was heard, followed by Derrick saying, “Now what, Bitch?” and “Talk that shit now.” There was more moaning, and the phone was hung up. The 911 call lasted one minute and thirty-two seconds. All of the gunshots occurred within a nine-second period.

Police arrived approximately ten minutes later and found Victim 1 dead on the kitchen floor.³ A handgun was in her left hand and a hammer in her right hand. Five shell casings were found in the kitchen—one near the right side of Victim 1's torso, two close to her feet, one near the door leading to the back deck, and one in the doorway between the kitchen and living room. A live cartridge was also found in the kitchen. A bullet hole and blood spatter was found in the middle of a cabinet near Victim 1's feet. The blood spatter indicated that she was already injured and bleeding from a previous shot when she was shot again. Another bullet hole was found on the bottom of the refrigerator door near Victim 1's left hand. Victim 1 had been shot twice—in her left armpit and on the right side of her back. She died as a result of the bullet that entered the left armpit and hit her left lung, heart, and liver.

Police found Victim 2 conscious on the living room floor, but she later died at the hospital. She was shot twice—in the right side of her chest below her breast and behind the right ear on the right side of the back of the neck. The bullet in her chest hit her liver, stomach, and small intestine, causing her death. The bullet in the back of her neck went through the muscles in her neck, into her mouth, knocking out some teeth, and then tore her left cheek at the corner of her mouth. Police found two teeth on the living room floor. Police found a bullet hole in the living room/staircase wall and determined that the bullet had been fired from the kitchen area towards the living room.

Derrick fled north toward Chicago where he had family but ran out of gas on the side of the road just south of Moberly. He walked to a gas station and called 911 stating that he wanted to turn himself in. At 1:00 a.m., Moberly police met Derrick at a Conoco station approximately two miles from where he had left his car.⁴ Derrick told the police that he needed to turn himself in about something that had happened. Officers noticed brownish-reddish stains on his white T-shirt and believed them to be blood stains. Derrick was advised of and waived his Miranda rights. Derrick identified himself and said that he had been involved in an altercation and that his girlfriend and her mother had been shot. He claimed that during an altercation started by Victim 2, Victim 1 had tried to shoot him but instead shot her mother and then he had taken the gun away from Victim 1 and shot her in self-defense. After contacting the Columbia Police Department and learning of the homicides, the officers arrested Derrick. Victim 1's cellphone was found in his pocket.

Derrick was taken back to Columbia where he gave a recorded interview after waiving his Miranda rights.⁵ Derrick claimed that he was in bed asleep naked when Victim 2 came in and ripped the blanket off of him and started hitting and yelling at him to leave. He said that Victim 1 was also in the bedroom with his gun and that she called 911 and said he was being violent and had a gun. He said that he got up and walked into the living room with Victim 2 still hitting and grabbing on to him in a bear hug. Standing near the bedroom, Victim 1 then fired the gun two or three times trying to shoot him but she shot her mother instead and yelled, “No!” Derrick claimed that Victim 1 then chased him to the kitchen where he was trying to leave out of the back door. He said that he turned around and grabbed her hand with the gun to try to take it away, that they fell to the ground, and that the gun went off as he wrestled it away from her. Derrick then claimed that they both stood back up, she grabbed a hammer that was on the counter, and he shot her. He picked up a phone on the floor that he thought was his, put on his clothes, and left. He said everything happened very fast and that his girlfriend tried to kill him so he had to defend himself. He said that he did not call the police because he was afraid they would shoot him when they got there.

One of the detectives that interviewed Derrick and investigated the crime testified to several discrepancies between Derrick's version of events in his interview and the 911 call and the evidence at the scene. First, Derrick said that Victim 1 had the gun and that he had to take it from her, but in the 911 call, Victim 1 said that Derrick had the gun. Second, Derrick told the detectives that Victim 2 was hitting him and yelling at him in the bedroom, but there was no yelling in the background of the 911 call. Next, the detective indicated that Derrick's account of what happened when the shots were fired (Victim 1 firing the gun near the bedroom, then chasing Derrick into kitchen, Derrick then wrestling with Victim 1 and seizing the gun, Victim 1 then grabbing a hammer, and Derrick then shooting Victim 1) would have taken longer than the nine seconds between the first and last shot heard on the 911 call. The detective also testified that Derrick's story that Victim 1 had fired the gun towards him and Victim 2 in the living room from the direction of the bedroom was inconsistent with the bullet hole in the living room wall, which instead indicates that the gun had been fired from the direction of the kitchen. He also stated that Derrick's story about the struggles with Victim 1 in the kitchen was noteworthy considering that he was 6’3” and 230 pounds and Victim 1 was 4’10” and 117 pounds. Finally, the detective testified that Derrick admitted shooting Victim 1 but did not attempt to explain how the gun ended up back in her left hand, where the police found it at the scene.

Derrick testified at trial in his own defense. He denied strangling or punching Victim 1 on August 17, 2022. He then testified that on November 5, 2022, he returned home from work sometime after 5:00 p.m., and Victim 1 was really drunk. He said he played with his son that evening and then went to bed. At some point, he awoke to banging on the back door, and he looked out the window and saw Victim 2's truck. Victim 2, who was really drunk, came into the bedroom, cursing at and attacking him. Victim 1 then came into the bedroom holding a gun. Derrick said he moved his son, who had been sleeping with him, into his crib, and went into the living room with Victim 2 still attacking him. He further indicated that Victim 1 was in the doorway to the bedroom with the gun in her hand and her phone in the other, talking to the police. He said that Victim 2 tried to grab the gun from Victim 1, Victim 1 said, “Mom, don't. Don't grab his gun,” and then she started shooting and the shots hit Victim 2. Derrick said that he ran toward the backdoor in the kitchen, that Victim 1 charged at him with the gun, that during the struggle with Victim 1 she grabbed a hammer, and that he then took the gun away from Victim 1 and shot her. Derrick said he then dressed, checked to make sure his son was okay, got his car keys, picked up Victim 1's phone, and left. Derrick said that he left because he was afraid the police would come and shoot him, that he left his son behind because he did not have a car seat, and that he planned to go to Moberly to turn himself in in a safe place. Derrick testified that he had to defend his life, and, looking back on what happened on that night, he would not have done anything differently. Finally, he admitting killing Victim 1, claiming it was in self-defense.

On cross-examination, Derrick admitted that he shot Victim 1 two times. He said that he fired the shot into the bottom of the refrigerator, when he was on the ground struggling with Victim 1. Derrick could not explain how the gun got from his hand to Victim 1's hand after the shootings and denied putting it there. He admitted he fired the last shot and that the gun ended up in her hand. He said he did not know if she was dead or alive after being shot through the heart.

Derrick also admitted that, upon turning himself in, he did not ask anyone whether Victim 1 was alive, nor did he inquire about Victim 2 and his son. He admitted that he did not call 911 on their behalf or do anything to help Victim 1 or Victim 2, even though Victim 2 was heard moaning on the 911 recording. Derrick admitted that he left his one-year-old son at the scene with the two dead or dying women.

Derrick also admitted that it was his voice on the 911 recording after the shooting saying, “Now what, Bitch?” and “Talk that shit now.” He also admitted to sending the threatening text messages to Victim 1 in August 2022. Finally, Derrick admitted that he had violated an Order of Protection, that he had convictions for resisting arrest, DWI, and peace disturbance, and that he had signed bond paperwork forbidding him from having contact with Victim 1 and that the court case on which he had bonded out was still pending at the time he shot Victim 1.

The jury found Derrick guilty of voluntary manslaughter and armed criminal action in the shooting death of Victim 1 (Counts 3 and 4) and of first-degree involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action in the shooting death of Victim 2 (Counts 1 and 2). It also found him guilty of second-degree domestic assault against Victim 1 for the earlier August 2022 incident (Count 5) but acquitted him of endangering the welfare of a child during that incident (Count 6). The trial court sentenced Derrick to 15 years’ imprisonment for voluntary manslaughter, 10 years’ imprisonment for involuntary manslaughter, 15 years’ imprisonment for each count of armed criminal action, and seven years’ imprisonment for domestic assault, to be served consecutively, for a total of 62 years in prison.

This appeal by Derrick followed.

Analysis

In two points on appeal, Derrick contends that the trial court erred in joining Counts 1 through 4 with Counts 5 and 6, and then in refusing to sever the charges. He argues that the charges were not connected, of the same or similar character, or parts of a common scheme or plan and that their joinder created substantial prejudice against him. In response, the State argues that: (1) the joinder of the domestic assault and endangering the welfare of a child charges based on the earlier events of August 2022 with the homicide and armed criminal action charges of November 2022 was proper because the acts were connected and were part of a common scheme; and (2) the denial of Derrick's motion to sever was not an abuse of the court's discretion because he failed to show substantial prejudice or bias.

“Joinder and severance are two distinct issues for appellate review.” State v. Reeder, 182 S.W.3d 569, 576 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). Joinder addresses the issue of what crimes can be charged in a single proceeding and is a question of law. State v. Roberts, 465 S.W.3d 899, 903 (Mo. banc 2015); State v. Hood, 451 S.W.3d 758, 762 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). In contrast, severance assumes proper joinder and leaves to the trial court's discretion whether prejudice may result from the joined charges. Hood, 451 S.W.3d at 762-63. “A trial court abuses its discretion if its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.” State v. Boyd, 659 S.W.3d 914, 923 (Mo. banc 2023) (internal quotes and citation omitted).

Liberal joinder of criminal offenses is favored by the courts. Roberts, 465 S.W.3d at 903. Rule 23.05 states that joinder of offenses is proper if all the offenses are “of the same or similar character or based on two or more acts that are part of the same transaction or on two or more acts or transactions that are connected or that constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Likewise, section 545.140.2, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2021, provides, in pertinent part:

two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged․are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.

Defendant argues that the charges are not of the same or similar character or parts of a common scheme or plan because the incidents were separated by two months and the November incident involved Victim 2, who was not part of the August incident. “[F]or joinder to be proper, the tactics used to commit the crimes need not be identical; they need only be of the same or similar character.” Hood, 451 S.W.3d at 764 (citing Reeder, 182 S.W.3d at 576). Factors used to determine if the tactics used to commit the offenses are similar in character include: (1) similarity in the type of offenses; (2) similarity in the victims’ sex and age group; (3) commonality of the location where the offenses took place; and (4) closeness in time between the crimes. Id.

In the present case, the offenses charged in Counts 3, 4, and 5 involved domestic violence acts against the same victim, Victim 1, Derrick's girlfriend and the mother of his child. The offenses occurred within the span of 12 weeks between August and November 2022 at the same location, the couple's home. The offenses charged in Counts 1, 2, and 6 similarly involved violence against family members, Victim 2 (Victim 1's mother) and Derrick and Victim 1's son, who were present with Victim 1 during the two incidents. Following the August incident, Derrick sent Victim 1 numerous texts threatening to kill her if she tried to leave the relationship. During the second incident in November, Derrick shot both victims as Victim 1 told the 911 operator that he was armed with a gun and was abusing and threatening to kill her. All of the offenses involved acts of domestic violence of a similar character and were part of a continuing plan or scheme to control Victim 1 and keep her from leaving the relationship. Joinder was, therefore, proper in this case. See id. at 763-64 (joinder of charges of forcible rape, domestic assault, and resisting arrest was proper where all arose from incidents involving defendant committing domestic violence acts against the same victim, his girlfriend and mother of his child, within the span of a year).

Because joinder was proper, the trial court's denial of Derrick's motion to sever Counts 5 and 6 from Counts 1 through 4 is addressed next. Section 545.885.2, RSMo 2016, provides, in pertinent part, “If it appears that a defendant or the state is substantially prejudiced by a joinder of the offenses for trial,․the court may grant a severance of offenses or provide whatever relief justice requires.” “[S]ubstantial prejudice” is “a bias or discrimination against the defendant or the state which is actually existing or real and not one which is merely imaginary, illusionary or nominal.” Id. Under Rule 24.07, severance is proper only when “[a] party makes a particularized showing of substantial prejudice if the offense is not tried separately” and “[t]he court finds the existence of a bias or discrimination against the party that requires a separate trial of the offense.” “In considering whether severance is required, the court considers the number of offenses joined, the complexity of the evidence, and the likelihood that the jury can distinguish the evidence and apply it, without confusion, to each offense.” Boyd, 659 S.W.3d at 923 (quoting State v. McKinney, 314 S.W.3d 339, 342 (Mo. banc 2010)). “Any prejudice from joinder may be overcome where the evidence with regard to each crime is sufficiently simple and distinct to mitigate the risks of joinder.” McKinney, 314 S.W.3d at 342 (internal quotes and citation omitted).

Here, Derrick failed to a make a particularized showing that he would be substantially prejudiced if all the charges were tried together. The charges and evidence were sufficiently simple, straightforward, and distinct. The six charged offenses occurred over two separate incidents, and the evidence was not complex or confusing. The jury could easily distinguish the August domestic assault evidence with its accompanying video and pictures from the November homicide evidence, including the 911 call and police body camera videos, and apply the law to each offense. Additionally, it was instructed to consider each count separately. In fact, the jury found Derrick not guilty of the endangering the welfare of a child charge even though it allegedly happened in conjunction with the domestic assault from the August incident. “The jury's decision to acquit a defendant of one count, while convicting him of the other counts is indicative of the jury's ability to distinguish evidence and apply the law to each count separately.” State v. Herring, 715 S.W.3d 623, 639 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (internal quotes, citation, and alterations omitted).

Derrick argues that while the August allegations were distinct from the shootings that occurred in November, the inflammatory effect of combining the “strangling” allegation of Count 5 with the shooting incidents alleged in Counts 1 through 4 substantially impacted the jury's verdicts on Counts 1 through 4. This argument, however, is conclusory and does not support severance. “Allegations that a jury will likely consider evidence of guilt of one charge as evidence of guilt of the others ‘are insufficient to show prejudice as they are entirely conclusory and devoid of any specific factual support.’ ” Boyd, 659 S.W.3d at 923 (quoting State v. Hallmark, 635 S.W.3d 163, 169 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021)).

Finally, the evidence of the August incident would have been admissible at a separate murder trial. “In cases of murder or assault, prior misconduct by the defendant toward the victim is logically relevant to show motive, intent, or absence of mistake or accident.” State v. Tolliver, 101 S.W.3d 313, 315 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). Raising a self-defense claim puts motive and intent at the center of the issue. Id. Consequently, evidence of the prior assault by Derrick against Victim 1 was probative regarding his self-defense claim concerning the later incident. Id. Because such evidence would have been admissible in a separate homicide prosecution, Derrick suffered no additional prejudice. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Derrick's motion to sever.

Points one and two are denied.

Conclusion

The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. State v. Williams, 608 S.W.3d 205, 207 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020). Any contrary evidence or inferences mentioned in this opinion is only to provide context for Derrick's claims.

2.   The officers’ interaction with Victim 1 was recorded on their body cameras, and they photographed her injuries. The videos and photos were admitted into evidence.

3.   Police body camera videos of the scene were admitted at trial.

4.   A police body camera recording of the officers’ interaction with Derrick was admitted at trial.

5.   The interview was admitted at trial.

Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge

All concur.