Cecil Barriner, State v. Barriner, 34 S.W.3d 139 (Mo. banc 2000) (first reversal)

Improper Admission of Prior Bad Acts
Cecil Barriner was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his ex-girlfriend’s daughter and the daughter’s grandmother. The Missouri Supreme Court overturned Barriner’s conviction and death sentence on direct appeal, holding that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior uncharged misconduct because any probative value was far outweighed by the prejudicial effect. “[F]or the improper purposes of establishing his bad character and his sexual perversion,” the state sought to introduce video evidence of consensual sex between Barriner and his ex-girlfriend Shirley Niswonger involving bondage, a photograph of the cover of a Bondage Fantasies magazine, a photograph of the labels of two homemade sex videotapes, a photograph of a duffel bag with dildos inside, and Niswonger’s testimony that Barriner threatened to shoot her son. 34 S.W.3d at 147. None of this evidence fell within an exception to the rule prohibiting admission of prior uncharged misconduct evidence. Reviewing the claim for plain error, the court held:
In light of the sheer volume of improperly admitted evidence, the graphic nature of this evidence, and the difference between merely hearing about the improperly admitted exhibits and actually seeing them, this Court cannot say that the venireperson’s responses during voir dire indicate that the improper admission of evidence of appellant's sexual proclivities was harmless.
34 S.W.3d at150.

Cecil Barriner, State v. Barriner, 111 S.W.3d 396 (Mo. banc 2003) (second reversal)

Improper Exclusion of Forensic Evidence of Third-Party Guilt
Barriner’s conviction and death sentence were overturned on direct appeal a second time after he was retried. This time, the trial court had improperly precluded defense counsel from eliciting testimony from the state criminalist that hairs found on one of the victim’s leg and on the rope used to bind the second victim did not come from either Barriner or the victims and was thus logically and legally relevant evidence tending to show that another person may have committed the crime. The Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the exclusion of the hair evidence was prejudicial because it was highly probative and evidence of Barriner’s guilt was not overwhelming. Although Barriner had confessed to the crime, evidence of his confession was introduced “only through an officer’s testimony, requiring the jury to rely upon the officer’s credibility and accurate memory.” 111 S.W.3d at 401. The rest of the evidence was circumstantial.

Jury Rejects Death Penalty in Third Trial
Mr. Barriner was found guilty at a third trial in November 2004, but the jury sentenced him to life without parole. (Sikeston Standard Democrat article)