OTT LAW

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. ROBERT W. ATTWOOD, Appellant

Decision date: UnknownSD29358

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD29358 ) Opinion Filed ROBERT W. ATTWOOD, ) October 15, 2009 ) Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF McDONALD COUNTY

Honorable Kevin Selby, Special Judge

AFFIRMED

Robert Attwood (Defendant) challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support a first-degree murder conviction. We view the record most favorably to the verdict. State v. Norman, 243 S.W.3d 466, 469 (Mo.App. 2007). Facts and Background

Chris Harrison wanted to fight Brandon Bowman over a girlfriend. 1 They met at a gas station, but Bowman demurred because he was on probation. They went separate ways, but after several phone calls, they and their respective friends met at

1 She had dated Harrison, but was Bowman's girlfriend on the night in question, then was back with Harrison by the time of trial.

2 Bowman's apartment complex and agreed to fight at a place nearby. Harrison called four more friends, including Aaron King, to "have his back so he didn't get jumped." They came, but before the fight could start, someone said the police were coming and Harrison's group took off. The police came, talked with Bowman's group, and left; then the two groups exchanged more phone calls about a new place to fight. Defendant also was invited to fight on Bowman's side, and he brought his gun. The groups agreed to meet at a specific parking lot and eventually did so. Defendant rushed toward King's car, pulling his gun from about 15 feet away. Harrison fled in his vehicle.

Defendant approached King's car and pointed the gun at King. Everyone put up their hands and shrunk from the weapon, which was inside the car window near King's neck, so close that King, also with hands up, backed against the front passenger and asked Defendant not to shoot. Defendant asked the men what their problem was. They said they had no problem, and asked him not to shoot. Defendant repeated his question, then said, "You got a problem now," and fired. The shot severed King's carotid artery, mortally wounding him. Sufficiency of Deliberation Evidence Defendant concedes his guilt for second-degree murder, but drawing somewhat upon treatises and non-Missouri cases, he claims there was insufficient proof of the "deliberation" necessary for first-degree murder. We disagree.

3 Section 565.020.1 makes it first-degree murder to knowingly cause another's death after "deliberation," which means "cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief." § 565.002(3). Deliberation need be only momentary. State v. Clark, 913 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Mo. App. 1996)(overruled in other respects by Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. banc 2002)); State v. Davis, 905 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. App. 1995). It is enough if the evidence shows that the defendant considered taking another's life in a deliberate state of mind. Clark, 913 S.W.2d at 404. 2

A jury could conclude from the record that Defendant brought this gun to the fight; pulled it from 15 feet away as he approached King's car; pointed it at King's neck through the open car window; taunted the car's occupants while they cowered, hands-up and begging him not to shoot; then killed King with a point-blank shot -- a record of deliberation tantamount to those found adequate in Clark, Davis, State v. Bridges, 810 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Mo. App. 1991), and State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 906 (Mo. banc 1988). We deny Defendant's point, 3 and affirm the judgment.

Daniel E. Scott, Chief Judge

RAHMEYER, J. – CONCURS LYNCH, P.J. – CONCURS CRAIG A. JOHNSTON, ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT CHRIS KOSTER AND DORA A. FICHTER, ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

2 Thus, Judge Blackmar reiterated that while some jurors might construe MAI's "cool reflection" reference "in a manner more favorable to the defendant than the law strictly requires," reflection "need be only momentary to establish deliberation." Davis, 905 S.W.2d at 923-24. 3 This moots Defendant's secondary argument that his armed criminal action conviction must be reversed if his first-degree murder conviction was in error.

Related Opinions

Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,374 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,516 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,993 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,603 words