Attorney for Malone gives 7 reasons new trial should be held

By Kyle Troutman [email protected]

A motion has been filed for a new trial for an Exeter man found guilty of four felony counts, including first-degree murder, in an April 14-16 jury trial.

Aaron Malone, 24, of Exeter, was found guilty of first-degree murder, abandonment of a corpse, tampering with physical evidence and armed criminal action, charges stemming from the death of Malone’s girlfriend, Aspen Lewis in November 2024.

Glenn Huggins, attorney for Malone, filed the motion for a new trial on April 17, detailing seven reasons a new trial should be held. They include:

1. The trial court erred in sustaining the State’s Motions in Limine to which Counsel objected at trial. Defense was limited from going into the reputation and prior actions of the Victim, impacting the Defense ability to establish provation sufficient to create heated passions in a reasonable person capable of overcoming reason. These motions by the State restricted both evidence and argument by Defense to an extent that it violated the Defendant’s rights to Due Process and Effective Assistance of Counsel under the 5th, 14th, and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution respectively, as well as Sections 10 and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution.

2. The trial court erred in not allowing Defense to pursue the State’s first two witnesses for incorrect testimony and possible perjury. At trial, the State’s first two witnesses made statements and allegations of material facts that Defense knows or believes to be incorrect. This questioning concerned the reputation of the Victim for becoming violent when drunk, a key defense component because the victim by the State’s own evidence was two and a half times the legal limit for alcohol and also had a significant amount of THC in her system when she died. The court’s refusal violated defendant’s rights to due process, confrontation, and counsel under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution.

3. The trial court erred in denying Defendant’s Motion for Remand for Preliminary Hearing on the Armed Criminal Action count. After preliminary hearing was waived by the Defendant with counsel, the State added the completely new count of Armed Criminal Action. This count was neither waived nor proven by the State at a preliminary hearing. The court’s refusal to remand for preliminary hearing violated defendant’s rights to due process, confrontation, and counsel under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution.

4. The trial court erred in denying Defendant’s Motion for Remand for Preliminary Hearing on all counts. After preliminary hearing was waived by the Defendant with counsel, Defendant indicated that he wanted to have a formal preliminary hearing on all counts, including the count of Armed Criminal Action that was added in the Circuit Court and never waived nor established at preliminary hearing. Defendant asserts that he has a right to have a preliminary hearing at any time prior to either trial or plea. The court’s refusal to remand for preliminary hearing violated defendant’s rights to due process, confrontation, and counsel under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution.

5. The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s Motion for Continuance to hire an expert. Defense counsel learned on April 1, 2026, at the deposition of the medical examiner that he changed his opinion regarding whether or not the gunshot was pre-mortem or post-mortem. This refusal denied defendant the opportunity to hire an independent expert to evaluate and refute the examiner’s final conclusion that the gunshot was post-mortem. The court’s refusal violated defendant’s rights to due process, confrontation, and counsel under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution.

6. The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the Close of All Evidence as the state did not meet its burden of proving each and every element of the case. Specifically, the State’s evidence supported the element of premeditation did not suffice to be beyond the reasonable doubt of a reasonable juror. The court’s denial of this instant Motion violated defendant’s rights to due process, confrontation, and counsel under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution.

7. The State made an improper closing argument. Counsel for the State made improper closing argument: first by arguing facts not in evidence, in stating their opinion as to what exactly caused the injuries and damage to the Victim when the testimony established that they could not so determine, and by describing the Victim’s injuries in manners not shown by the evidence. Both these arguments were improper, and the court should have issued a sanction sua sponte.

A sentencing assessment in Malone’s case is to be filed before June 1, and sentencing is set for June 9 at 11 a.m. in Jasper County Circuit Court, Judge David Allen Cole presiding.