STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant

STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent, v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant.

No. SD38782 Filed: February 25, 2026

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STONE COUNTY Honorable Alan M. Blankenship, Judge AFFIRMED Following a jury trial, Russell Kenneth Clancy ("Clancy") presents a single point relied on contending the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed second-degree assault against a special victim under § 565.052.3. 1 Finding no merit in his appeal, we affirm. Factual Background On April 13, 2024, Clancy – a civilian himself – approached an elderly man ("C.F.") – who was also a civilian – in the parking lot of the Barry County Sheriff's

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp. (2017).

In Division

2

Office in Cassville. Clancy claimed to be a "marshal" and told C.F. that he was not allowed to park in the sheriff's parking lot without a badge. After C.F. ignored Clancy and his baseless demands, Clancy proceeded to punch C.F.'s cellphone out of his hands and then hit the side of C.F.'s truck. C.F. reported Clancy's actions to a nearby sheriff's deputy ("Deputy S.B.") and told the deputy that Clancy had walked down the street to the laundromat. Deputy S.B. went to the laundromat to find Clancy and investigate the account given by C.F. C.F. accompanied Deputy S.B. to the laundromat in order to identify his accoster. When Deputy S.B. and C.F. arrived at the laundromat, they found Clancy standing in the parking lot. Clancy continued to act belligerent towards C.F., yelling numerous expletives towards him. Deputy S.B. could smell alcohol on Clancy's breath, and inside Clancy's hoodie pocket was a bottle of whiskey. Deputy S.B. attempted to deescalate the situation, but Clancy ignored the deputy's commands and became increasingly more belligerent and verbally aggressive. An officer of the Cassville police department, ("Officer M.M.") was one of several law enforcement officers who arrived on scene at the laundromat. Officer M.M. stood between Clancy and C.F. because he was worried about C.F.'s safety. Deputy S.B. then told Clancy to turn around and put his hands behind his back so she could handcuff him. Deputy S.B. explained at trial that she did this intending to put Clancy in a "12-hour detox hold" so Clancy could "sober up" and "get out in 12 hours [with] no charges." Clancy initially told Deputy S.B. to go ahead and "take me in[.]" However, when Deputy S.B. went to handcuff Clancy, Clancy jerked away and began to charge at C.F. Clancy made it past Officer M.M. and punched C.F. in

3

the face with a closed fist. Officer M.M. and another officer grabbed ahold of Clancy and attempted to gain control of him. A scuffle ensued with several other officers assisting in order to apprehend Clancy and "take him to the ground." As the group of law enforcement officers wrangled Clancy to the ground, Deputy S.B. saw Clancy punch Officer M.M. in the face and saw Officer M.M.'s glasses fly off his face. Officer M.M. testified at trial during direct examination as follows: [Officer M.M.:] When I grabbed him, I remember getting hit in the face. [Prosecutor:] Who hit you in the face? [Officer M.M.:] [Clancy]. [Prosecutor:] How many times? [Officer M.M.:] I couldn't tell you how many times. I know my glasses got knocked off my face. [Prosecutor:] I was going to say, were you wearing glasses? [Officer M.M.:] Yes. Same glasses. [Prosecutor:] We see on the body cam you don't have them and are asking for them. Do you remember how they got knocked off? [Officer M.M.:] Yes. After I was hit in the face by [Clancy] my glasses were knocked off my face.

During cross-examination, Officer M.M. testified as follows: [Defense counsel:] Now, you stated he hits you with a closed fist. Are you aware of what he hit you with? [Officer M.M.:] I'm not sure if it was a closed fist or an elbow. I don't remember.

4

[Defense counsel:] So, you don't know if it was just him coming after you or just an elbow going up while he was doing something else? [Officer M.M.:] I remember him turning toward me and then I remember feeling get hit in the face. [Defense counsel:] Right. But you don't know what body part or anything like that. [Officer M.M.:] Correct. [Defense counsel:] Okay. And then it was shortly after he hit you that you all started going to the ground. [Officer M.M.:] Yes. After Clancy had been subdued, Officer M.M. was treated at a local emergency room because of a swollen face, and an x-ray revealed a bone in his nose was broken. Officer M.M. also sustained multiple torn muscles in his shoulder and bicep, which required surgery, from wrangling Clancy to the ground. Following these injuries and surgery, Officer M.M. spent many months in physical therapy and was restricted to light duty work for the Cassville police department. Clancy was found guilty of second-degree assault against a special victim under § 565.052 and resisting arrest under § 575.150. 2 The trial court sentenced Clancy to concurrent sentences of 12 years' imprisonment for the second-degree assault conviction and one year of imprisonment for resisting arrest.

2 The State included a third charge of third-degree assault under § 565.054 in the amended felony information filed against Clancy, but the State dismissed that charge before trial.

5

Standard of Review "We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by accepting all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict; we reject all contrary evidence and inferences." State v. Gilley, 613 S.W.3d 108, 109 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020). After accepting the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and rejecting all contrary evidence, we then review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether the State has introduced "sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Id. (quoting State v. Smith, 944 S.W.2d 901, 916 (Mo. banc 1997)). Legal Analysis Clancy's point on appeal contends:

The trial court erred in overruling defense counsel's motions for judgment of acquittal and sentencing [Clancy] on his conviction of assault in the second degree, because there was insufficient evidence from which a rational finder of fact could find [Clancy] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of his right to due process of law, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution, in that the State's evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Clancy] struck [Officer M.M.] recklessly rather than accidentally. Clancy rests his argument primarily on his belief that "[t]he body cam videos, especially, show a scene so confusing that it cannot be established that [Clancy's] strike to Officer [M.M.] was reckless rather than merely an accident during the melee." We disagree. Even though Clancy only challenges whether he acted recklessly, we begin by providing the applicable portion of § 565.052.1 which provides: "[a] person commits the

6

offense of assault in the second degree if he or she: ... (3) [r]ecklessly causes serious physical injury to another person[.]" 3 § 562.016.4 provides that "[a] person 'acts recklessly' or is reckless when he or she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, and such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation." Here, Deputy S.B. testified that she saw Clancy punch Officer M.M. in the face and saw his glasses fly off. Officer M.M. himself testified Clancy turned towards him and then hit him in the face. Officer M.M. sustained a swollen face and a broken bone in his nose from Clancy's hit. He also suffered serious injuries to his shoulder that were caused by wrangling Clancy to the ground. That trial testimony is sufficient to support the jury's verdict that Clancy acted recklessly. Indeed, that evidence tends to prove that Clancy acted purposely or knowingly. See § 562.021.4 ("When recklessness suffices to establish a culpable mental state, it is also established if a person acts purposely or knowingly[.]"). Moreover, we reviewed the body cam footage and it is consistent with the trial testimony and the jury's verdict.

3 Although not an issue in this appeal, Clancy was charged and convicted for second- degree assault against a special victim. § 565.052.3 provides "[t]he offense of assault in the second degree is a class D felony, unless the victim of such assault is a special victim, as the term 'special victim' is defined under section 565.002, in which case it is a class B felony." Included in the definition of special victim in § 565.002(14) is "[a] law enforcement officer assaulted in the performance of his or her official duties or as a direct result of such official duties[.]"

7

Conclusion Clancy's point on appeal is denied and we affirm Clancy's conviction for second- degree assault. BRYAN E. NICKELL, J. – OPINION AUTHOR JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS