STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff- Missouri Cases

Deborah K. Lundstrom was convicted of multiple charges, including first-degree endangering the welfare of a child resulting in death and involuntary manslaughter, after a 9-month-old child died from asphyxiation in a car seat while left unsupervised at her unlicensed daycare. On appeal, Lundstrom challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the death-related charges and argued the trial court plainly erred in a jury instruction. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed all convictions, finding sufficient evidence for both charges and no plain error in the jury instruction, as the terms "caused" and "results in" were deemed to have no meaningful difference in this context.

Michael Scott Mount was found guilty of multiple charges, including identity theft, after a bench trial. On appeal, Mount challenged his identity theft conviction, arguing insufficient evidence, and sought to exclude evidence as fruit of an unlawful search. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding Mount lacked standing to challenge the hotel room search and that sufficient evidence supported his identity theft conviction.

Deparis Townsend was convicted of first-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, resisting arrest, and armed criminal action following a jury trial. On appeal, Townsend challenged the admission of a Facebook video and the trial court's failure to sua sponte declare a mistrial after testimony about his invocation of the right to counsel. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the handling of the invocation of counsel. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the written judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement of a life sentence without parole for the murder conviction.

Andrew J. Cooper appealed his conviction for armed criminal action, arguing that the trial court erred by submitting a jury instruction on armed criminal action with involuntary manslaughter as the underlying felony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Cooper failed to preserve the instructional error for review by not making a specific objection at trial or in his motion for new trial. The court declined to exercise plain error review, and further noted that even if reviewed, the argument would fail on the merits due to controlling Supreme Court of Missouri precedent.

Gregory Leon Crumm was convicted of first-degree rape by forcible compulsion and first-degree statutory rape, stemming from a single act of sexual intercourse. He appealed, arguing that his convictions for both offenses violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, declining plain-error review and holding that convictions for both forcible rape and statutory rape for a single act do not constitute double jeopardy.

Bobby Genaro Foreman, Jr. appealed his convictions for two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, arguing the trial court plainly erred by failing to include cross-references to self-defense and defense-of-others jury instructions in the verdict directors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It concluded that, despite the instructional error, Foreman failed to demonstrate that the omission resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice, especially since the jury was generally instructed on the defenses and counsel argued them.

Amanda Joy Rogers appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon after a jury found her guilty. The trial court's judgment was reversed because the appellate court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court held that in cases of joint control of a vehicle, mere presence, proximity to a concealed firearm, nervousness, or driving the vehicle are not enough to establish conscious and intentional possession without additional incriminating circumstances, which were absent here.

Jordan Niccole Williams appealed her conviction for abuse or neglect of a child resulting in serious physical injury. She argued that the Amended Information was insufficient and that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the Information adequately charged the offense and that there was sufficient evidence to prove Williams knowingly caused the victim's injuries by failing to protect him from serious physical abuse.

Kyle Byington was convicted of first-degree murder and abandonment of a corpse following a jury trial. On appeal, Byington argued the trial court erred by denying his request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, declining plain error review. It held that voluntary manslaughter is not a nested lesser included offense of first- or second-degree murder, and the jury's conviction of the greater offense (first-degree murder) over the lesser (second-degree murder) demonstrated no prejudice from the omitted instruction.

Lance Lechner appealed his conviction for first-degree child molestation, raising seven points of error. He challenged the trial court's decision to allow the State to amend the felony information on the day of trial and to deny his motion for continuance. Lechner also argued the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial or striking certain venirepersons due to potential bias from his prior convictions. Additionally, he claimed instructional error regarding the aggravated sexual offense element and insufficient evidence for that element. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in any of Lechner's claims.

Amanda M. Mire was charged with driving while intoxicated, and the trial court granted her motions to suppress statements and physical evidence, specifically blood draw results. The trial court found that Mire was involuntarily administered Versed, which prevented her from knowingly and voluntarily consenting to a blood draw or waiving her Miranda rights. The State appealed, and the appellate court vacated the trial court's order, holding that the trial court clearly erred by inferring the cognitive effects of Versed without expert testimony. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

John Yaggy appealed his convictions for resisting arrest and second-degree kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence. The appellate court affirmed the convictions. It held that Yaggy waived his first point of error by introducing evidence, and for the second point, it found sufficient evidence to support the mens rea for both the kidnapping and resisting arrest charges.

Damyon Wayne Fisher appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, challenging the circuit court's decision to sustain the prosecutor's objection to a question defense counsel asked during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion because the question improperly sought a commitment from prospective jurors regarding a hypothetical situation that strongly mirrored the anticipated facts of the case.

Defendant Frank Clifford Parry IV appealed his convictions for multiple felonies, including child molestation and statutory sodomy, and his consecutive life sentences. He argued the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's allegations of sexual abuse by others and by sentencing him based on a mistaken belief. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidence exclusion and no plain error in the sentencing.

Keith Thompson was convicted as a prior and persistent offender of first-degree statutory rape, third-degree child molestation, and sexual misconduct with a child by indecent exposure. On appeal, Thompson challenged the denial of a mistrial, argued double jeopardy for the sexual misconduct conviction, and contended the evidence was insufficient for the sexual misconduct charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in any of Thompson's points on appeal.

Keymond S. Brown appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action, stemming from a fatal shootout. Brown contended the trial court erred by denying his motion to compel discovery of the victim's juvenile records, which he sought for his self-defense claim, and by admitting evidence of his attempt to fabricate an alibi while in juvenile detention. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the trial court lacked authority to compel the juvenile records and that Brown failed to show their materiality, and that the alibi evidence was properly admitted as consciousness of guilt.

David Martin Eugene Hood was convicted of statutory rape, sodomy, and incest. On appeal, he argued the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss, which was made after the prosecutor's opening statement failed to mention the offenses occurred in McDonald County or Missouri. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that Hood broadened his objection on appeal, the trial court properly allowed the State to supplement its opening statement, and Hood failed to show prejudice.

Benjamin Allen Bodine appealed his convictions for enticement of a child and first-degree statutory sodomy, arguing the trial court plainly erred by sending a video of a juvenile witness interview to the jury during deliberations. The defendant failed to preserve this claim for appeal, requesting plain error review. The Southern District of Missouri Court of Appeals declined to exercise plain error review, affirming the judgment based on established precedent that such forensic interviews are not testimonial in nature and can be provided to the jury.

Mark Saleutogi Keleise appealed his convictions for multiple counts of kidnapping, assault, and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court plainly erred by sending a video of a juvenile witness interview to the jury during deliberation. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the convictions. The court held that Keleise waived plain error review because his defense counsel affirmatively participated in providing the video to the jury and did not object.

Matthew Todd Tetmeyer appealed his conviction for violating an order of protection against his father, J.T. He argued that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence regarding a separate, expired order of protection obtained by his mother, S.T., against him, which he claimed was relevant to his knowledge of the active order. The Southern District of Missouri affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding the evidence because it was not relevant to the specific order of protection at issue and its probative value was outweighed by its potential to confuse the issues.

Timothy Green, Jr. was convicted of second-degree assault and armed criminal action after a jury trial. On appeal, Green claimed the circuit court erred in taxing costs against him and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, declined plain error review for the costs issue, finding no manifest injustice. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the victim's testimony provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find Green guilty of the assault.

Ricky Arnold appealed his convictions for resisting a lawful stop and second-degree felony murder following a jury trial. Arnold argued the trial court erred by admitting a state trooper's opinion testimony regarding his intent to flee and by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence that he operated a vehicle at a high speed. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the admission of testimony because the objection was not timely or specific, and concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding on the "high speed" element of resisting a lawful stop.

John David Fleenor was found guilty of unlawful use of a weapon after a bench trial and sentenced to two years in prison. On appeal, Fleenor argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, claiming the State failed to prove he did not act in self-defense. The Southern District affirmed the conviction, holding that Fleenor failed to inject the issue of self-defense into the trial, thus relieving the State of the burden to disprove it.

Michael Ray Durison, an inmate, was convicted of first-degree assault against a special victim, armed criminal action, and disarming a correctional officer after a physical altercation with a corrections officer at a hospital. During the struggle, Durison took the officer's Taser and stunned him. On appeal, Durison challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his assault and armed criminal action convictions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Durison's arguments.

Gary Lee Farrar, Jr. appealed his convictions for first-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon, stealing, and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court erred by not dismissing his case under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law (UMDDL). Farrar contended he substantially complied with the UMDDL's 180-day trial request. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that Farrar failed to substantially comply with the UMDDL by not delivering his request to the director of adult institutions and omitting essential information required for the director's certificate.

Dustin Curtis Winter appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping, along with a clerical error in his sentencing judgment. The appellate court affirmed the murder conviction, finding sufficient evidence of Victim's death, Winter's perpetration, and deliberation. However, the court reversed the kidnapping conviction, concluding there was insufficient evidence that the confinement was for a substantial period or more than merely incidental to the murder. The case was remanded to the trial court to correct the written judgment to reflect the orally pronounced life sentence for murder.

Steven Ray Hanks, Sr., a registered sex offender, appealed his conviction for failing to register a change of address. He argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he failed to inform the registrar knowingly and that the trial court plainly erred by not striking testimony about a school zone restriction. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that Hanks failed to register his new address despite being told it was impermissible, and that the trial court did not plainly err because Hanks himself introduced the evidence of the restriction as part of his defense.

Joshua Rainey pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges and subsequently filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel. Rainey claimed counsel failed to adequately inform him of his right to plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGRI), failed to enter an NGRI plea, and failed to inform the court of a psychiatric report supporting an NGRI defense. The motion court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no clear error in the motion court's findings that counsel acted reasonably and Rainey's plea was knowing and voluntary.

Steven A. Benford appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, among other charges, from the Circuit Court of Greene County. He argued there was insufficient evidence to prove the weapon found in his possession was a "firearm" as defined by statute. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the testimony of experienced police officers identifying the weapon as a 9-millimeter Taurus PT111 handgun, along with its admission as an exhibit, constituted sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder.

Travis Sterling appealed his conviction for second-degree trafficking of methamphetamine, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing expert testimony about a field test without demonstrating its reliability. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, declining to consider the argument because Sterling failed to make a foundational objection at trial, thus not preserving the issue for appeal. The court also declined plain error review, finding no facial showing of manifest injustice.

Brant M. Winkle appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and armed criminal action following a jury trial. The appellate court dismissed two of Winkle's three points on appeal for failing to comply with Rule 84.04(d)'s briefing requirements. However, the court reviewed the third point, which challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, despite its deficiencies. The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the convictions and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

James L. Lancaster appealed his conviction for third-degree domestic assault, arguing the trial court erred by admitting only a portion of a home surveillance video, thereby violating the rule of completeness. The video admitted depicted the entire assault, while Lancaster sought to introduce a longer video to impeach the victim's credibility. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the admission of the video. The court held that the rule of completeness did not apply because the additional video was not part of a greater whole related to the charged conduct, and was sought only for impeachment.

Defendant D'Ereck Whitney appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, assault, unlawful use of a weapon, and property damage. He argued the trial court erred by admitting a YouTube video and that there was insufficient evidence for his first-degree assault convictions. The appellate court affirmed the admission of the video, finding the defendant "opened the door" to its admission. However, the court reversed several first-degree assault convictions due to insufficient evidence of specific intent, remanding for entry of convictions for the lesser-included offense of fourth-degree assault.

Christopher B. Shultz appealed his convictions for harassment, stalking, and tampering with a victim, arguing insufficient evidence for tampering and requesting plain-error review for jury instruction and preliminary hearing issues. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the judgment. The court found sufficient evidence supported the tampering conviction and declined plain-error review for the remaining points, concluding Shultz failed to demonstrate manifest injustice.

Christopher Willis English appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and abandonment of a corpse. He contended the trial court erred by allowing a law enforcement officer to testify as a rebuttal witness and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the rebuttal testimony and concluding that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.

Alisha Louise Buell appealed her conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) following a bench trial, arguing insufficient evidence to prove she was intoxicated or impaired by drugs. The State presented evidence of Buell's admissions to recent drug use, her erratic driving behavior, and an officer's observations and opinion of impairment. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of intoxication.

Defendant Kevin Irby appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary, arguing the trial court erred by making a handwritten amendment to a jury instruction that may have misdirected the jury. The amendment added the word "unlawfully" to Instruction No. 5, an element of the offense. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the amendment was not plain error because the instruction, as amended, contained all necessary elements, and the jury was repeatedly advised on the "unlawfully" element by both the court and counsel.

Ryan Houston appealed his conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim, arguing the State failed to prove he knew the victim was an elderly person. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. The court held that the relevant statute, § 565.052.3, does not require proof of a defendant's knowledge of a victim's special status because § 562.021.2 dictates that a culpable mental state is only required for elements explicitly specified in the offense definition.

Carl W. Dill, II appealed his convictions for first-degree trafficking and resisting arrest following a jury trial. He argued the evidence was insufficient to prove his affirmative participation in drug trafficking as an accomplice and that he knew he was being arrested before fleeing. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, re-adopted and re-issued its original opinion. The court affirmed both convictions, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude Dill participated in trafficking and knew or should have known he was being arrested.

Jeremy Damon Guest appealed his convictions for voluntary manslaughter, armed criminal action, stealing, and unlawful use of a weapon, stemming from a shooting incident at a Pilot Truck Stop where he claimed self-defense. Guest argued the trial court erred by allowing the State to question him about his brother not testifying and by overruling an objection to the State's closing argument. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion as the brother was a peculiarly available witness and the closing argument was a permissible response that did not decisively impact the jury's verdict.

Henry John Epenesa appealed his conviction for assault in the fourth degree following a bench trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence to prove he was not acting in self-defense. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that Epenesa failed to meet his burden of injecting the issue of self-defense with substantial evidence, thus the State was not required to disprove it, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.

Bobby Lee Mays, Jr. appealed his convictions for felony possession of a controlled substance, driving with a suspended license, misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Mays contended the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance after the State failed to disclose Officer Cliff's body camera video in discovery. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion because the trial court excluded the late-disclosed evidence as Mays requested, and Mays did not formally move for a continuance after reviewing the video.

Sean M. Wolf appealed his convictions for attempted tampering with a victim and tampering with a witness. He argued the trial court erred by overruling his motions for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove the alleged victim was, in fact, a victim of any crime. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that despite Wolf's multifarious point on appeal, which it reviewed ex gratia, the State presented sufficient evidence to establish that the target of the tampering was a victim of a crime.

Debbie Gosvener appealed her conviction for felony stealing a credit device following a bench trial. She argued there was insufficient evidence to prove she appropriated a debit card from a purse left at a gas station. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage of her actions, a police officer's expert testimony, and her self-incriminating statement, was sufficient for the trial court to infer her guilt.