State v. Agee

• Decision Date: 11 October 2011
• Docket Number: No. SD 30764.,SD 30764.
• Citation: 350 S.W.3d 83
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent,v.Jaclyn AGEE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

350 S.W.3d 83

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Jaclyn AGEE, Appellant.

No. SD 30764.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Oct. 11, 2011.

Rosalynn Koch, Columbia. for Appellant.Chris Koster, Atty. Gen. and John Winston Grantham, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

ROBERT S. BARNEY, Judge.

Jaclyn Agee (“Appellant”) appeals her convictions following a jury trial for one count of the class A felony of murder in the second degree, a violation of section 565.021; one count of the class B felony of burglary in the first degree, a violation of section 569.160; one count of the class A felony of robbery in the first degree, a violation of section 569.020; three counts of the class C felony of felonious restraint, violations of section 565.120; three counts of the class B felony of facilitating a kidnapping, violations of section 565.100, RSMo Cum.Supp.2004; and eight counts of the unclassified felony of armed criminal action, violations of section 571.015.¹ Appellant was sentenced by the trial court to ten years on the murder in the second degree charge and five years imprisonment on the burglary in the first degree charge with those sentences to run consecutively. The trial court further ordered that the sentences on all of the other counts would run concurrently with the sentence on the murder charge.² Appellant posits six claims of trial court error. We affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, State v. Goodwin, 43 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Mo. banc 2001), the record reveals that in early 2008 Appellant and her then-boyfriend, Roy Bradshaw (“Roy”), rented a mobile home from Albert Shomaker (“Bub”), and his girlfriend, Dianne Ledgerwood (“Dianne”), in Winona, Missouri.³ When Appellant and Roy vacated the mobile home in April of 2008, Bub and Dianne, who lived nearby, refused to refund their security deposit due to the poor condition of the mobile home upon their departure. Roy angrily confronted Bub on several occasions about the security deposit, but Bub continued to refuse to refund it to them.

On May 7, 2008, Bub, who had been at a medical appointment in Springfield, Missouri, returned home at around 2:30 p.m. to find Roy and Appellant inside his home. Upon entering the home, Roy pointed Bub's own loaded rifle at him and escorted him to the back bedroom, where Appellant was waiting for them holding Bub's loaded 12–gauge shotgun. Appellant and Roy then bound Bub's hands and feet with duct tape. Bub noticed the home had been ransacked and that Appellant and Roy were eating food from his refrigerator.⁴ Although at first discussing the issue of the security deposit, Appellant and Roy then began to explain to Bub that Dianne was a police informant who had been informing the police about their apparent drug activity and they had been sent by drug dealers to kill Dianne and Bub. Bub told them he had no idea what they were talking about and even offered to sign his property over to them if they would spare his life.

At around 8:00 p.m., Dianne arrived home accompanied by Bub's cousin, Scott Shomaker (“Scott”), and his girlfriend, Leeoma Vinson (“Leeoma”). Appellant shoved Bub to the floor and placed the shotgun to the back of his head while Roy hid behind the bedroom door. When Dianne approached the back bedroom, Roy called out to her and told her he wanted to talk to her. Dianne immediately ran back toward the living room yelling for Scott to call the police. Roy followed her, shot her in the back, and she fell to the floor. ⁵ Roy then pointed to Scott and said, “You're next.” Appellant then came into the living room and calmed Roy down.

Roy then instructed Scott and Leeoma to hand over their cell phones and Appellant forced them at gunpoint into the back bedroom where they sat on the couch with Bub. Appellant stood watch with the shotgun while Scott and Leeoma were bound with duct tape. Appellant and Roy continued to tell them that they were acting under orders from the mob and that they were being watched to make sure they completed their assignment of killing Dianne and Bub.

For the next several hours Appellant and Roy screamed at their captives, threatened to kill them, and shoved various firearms in their faces. Bub, who was severely distraught over the death of Dianne, continued to bargain for his life and Scott and Leeoma appealed to Appellant and Roy to release them as well. Eventually Appellant and Roy agreed to release Scott and Leeoma after telling them that the police were in on the drug dealing in the area and that the police themselves would kill Scott and Leeoma if they reported the crime. They then told Scott and Leeoma that they would “hunt” them down and kill their children if they reported Dianne's murder. The decision was made to drive the pair into the woods and release them after firing off a few gun shots to convince the people allegedly watching them that they had been killed. At some point in time, Dianne's body was loaded into the trunk of her car and around midnight Appellant and Roy escorted the three captives to the vehicle. Scott, Leeoma, and Bub were in the backseat of the vehicle, Roy drove the vehicle and Appellant rode in the front passenger seat with a shotgun pointed at Bub.

They drove down various dirt roads for twenty to twenty-five minutes before Roy finally stopped the vehicle. Appellant and Roy removed Scott and Leeoma from the vehicle, took them to the back of the vehicle, and opened the trunk. Roy gave Scott his wallet back but kept both of their cell phones. Roy then cut the duct tape that bound their hands with Scott's pocket knife, returned the knife to Scott and let them go. Scott and Leeoma ran into the woods and hid. They were later picked up by a passerby and went to the authorities.

Meanwhile, Roy and Appellant returned to the vehicle and began driving down gravel roads with Bub in the backseat. The vehicle then ran out of gas. Appellant remained in the vehicle with the shotgun pointed at Bub while Roy went in search of gasoline. Roy returned shortly thereafter without gasoline. He then gave Bub a crowbar and told him to dig a grave for Dianne's body. After his efforts of digging appeared fruitless, Roy told him to stop. Roy and Appellant then decided to burn the vehicle with Dianne's body inside of it. Bub told them he would help them burn the vehicle and he promised not to tell anyone they had killed Dianne. After stuffing rags in the gas tank and the front seat, Bub lit the rags on fire and ran. Roy and Appellant ran at the same time in the other direction. Bub was able to locate a home nearby and he then contacted the authorities.

Roy and Appellant fled with Bub's guns as well as $250.00 to $300.00 in cash. They were later located hiding in a cabin in the woods and, following a short standoff, were apprehended by police. They were found in possession of Bub's guns.

After being taken into custody, Appellant was given Miranda⁶ warnings and she agreed to make a recorded statement for the police. During this statement Appellant made no mention of being threatened or coerced by Roy into committing the crimes at issue nor did she mention that he had ever abused or mistreated her during their relationship. Following her arrest, Appellant found herself in a holding area with Roy at which time they were observed by law enforcement authorities hugging, kissing, and being affectionate toward one another.

Appellant was eventually charged with the crimes detailed above and a trial was held on April 22 and 23, 2010. At trial, Appellant repeatedly testified that she was fearful of Roy because he physically, emotionally, and sexually abused her; that she tried to run away from him but his relatives would capture her and take her back to him; that he alienated her from her friends and family and took her phone away; and that she felt she could not go to the police about his abuse because his uncle is in law enforcement and his family routinely committed crimes with no consequences. She admitted that she held Bub and the others at gunpoint and tied them up, but stated that she felt she was not free to leave the ordeal because of her fear of Roy. She further testified that she admitted her involvement in the crimes at issue because she wanted to be incarcerated and safe from Roy's family, whom she felt “would make [her] disappear.” She also related that the incident when she was affectionate with Roy occurred the day they were arrested not at a later date.

At the close of the evidence, the jury convicted Appellant of all eighteen charged counts and she was sentenced as set out above. This appeal followed. For ease of analysis we shall address Appellant's points relied on out of order.

In reviewing the overruling of a motion for acquittal, this Court must determine if the State presented sufficient evidence to make a submissible case. State v. Johnson, 244 S.W.3d 144, 152 (Mo. banc 2008). A sufficiency of the evidence argument is reviewed to determine if a reasonable juror had enough evidence to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salter, 250 S.W.3d 705, 710 (Mo. banc 2008). This Court views “the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, disregarding any contrary evidence and granting the State all reasonable inferences from the evidence.” Johnson, 244 S.W.3d at 152. “Deference should be given to the superior position of the jury to assess the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value of their testimony.” Id. “Evidence and inferences favorable to the state are accepted, and contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded.” State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561, 572 (Mo. banc 2009).

Preliminary to our review of Appellant's first point relied on, we observe that in Counts XIII, XV and XVII of the “INFORMATION” Appellant was variously charged with the crime of kidnapping Bub, Scott and Leeoma in that she ...