State v. Allen, ED 104801
| Decision Date | 26 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 104801,ED 104801 |
| Citation | 536 S.W.3d 241 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael Lynn ALLEN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Jedd C. Schneider, 1000 West Nifong Blvd, Building 7, Suite 1000, Columbia, MO. 65203, for appellant.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.
Michael Lynn Allen ("Defendant") appeals from the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial where he was found guilty of one count of first-degree tampering, in violation of Section 569.080.1 Defendant argues the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction because there was no evidence any part of the offense occurred in Missouri, and the trial court plainly erred in failing to give a jury instruction for the lesser-included offense of second-degree tampering. We find the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict Defendant, vacate the judgment as void, and order the Defendant discharged.
One evening in February of 2014, the owner of a 1986 Ford pickup truck parked his truck on the street in downtown Perryville, Missouri and walked down the street to a bar. The owner left the truck unlocked with the keys under the floor mat. When he walked out of the bar less than an hour later, his truck was gone. He walked down the street to the Perryville Police Department and reported the truck missing. The owner also had several items of personal property in the truck, including a car stereo, a new chainsaw, ratchet straps, tow hitches, and a tow chain hook. In total, the personal property was worth just over $900. The Perryville Police put out a BOLO2 alert for the vehicle.
Five or six days later, Defendant went with some friends to the home of Samantha and James Brummett in Knobel, Arkansas. While there, Defendant asked if the Brummetts would be willing to trade their Jeep Cherokee for a 1986 Ford pickup truck. Defendant did not have the truck at the time. A deal was made. The next day, Defendant drove the truck to the Brummetts for the exchange, but Defendant did not have the title to the truck. The Brummetts agreed to trade vehicles that day, but they insisted on keeping the title to their Jeep until Defendant delivered title to the truck. Defendant left the truck with the Brummetts and drove away in the Jeep.
The next day, the Sheriff's Department in Clay County, Arkansas was contacted regarding the missing truck, given a description of the vehicle, and informed that it may be located in Knobel, Arkansas. Later that day, the truck was found at the Brummetts' home. Ms. Brummett explained that Defendant had traded the truck for their Jeep the previous day. After verifying that the truck was the same vehicle that had been taken from Perryville, Missouri a week earlier, the deputies seized the truck, towed it to an impound yard, and inventoried its contents. The deputies did not find any of the owner's personal property in the truck. Defendant was arrested later that day in Arkansas by the Clay County Sheriff's Department.
Defendant was extradited to Missouri and charged with one count each of first-degree tampering, for operating the truck without the owner's permission, and felony stealing, for taking the personal property in the truck. Defendant was not charged with stealing the truck. The information alleged the crimes occurred in Perry County, Missouri. A jury trial was held, and Defendant was found guilty of first-degree tampering but not guilty of stealing. The court sentenced Defendant to a term of four years' imprisonment. This appeal follows.
Defendant raises two points on appeal. In Point I, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in that there was insufficient evidence that Defendant operated the truck in Missouri, and therefore insufficient evidence to prove the trial court had territorial jurisdiction to prosecute him for the crime of first-degree tampering. In Point II, Defendant argues the trial court plainly erred in failing to give a jury instruction for the lesser-included crime of second-degree tampering.
Defendant's first point on appeal challenges the trial court's jurisdiction to convict him of the offense of first-degree tampering, arguing there was no evidence Defendant ever operated the truck within Missouri, which was required for the court to have jurisdiction. Defendant does not dispute that Missouri would have had jurisdiction if the crimes were committed as alleged in the information. Rather, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the State failed to prove the offense occurred within Missouri. We agree.
A claim challenging the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the State failed to prove the offense occurred within Missouri attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. State v. Williams , 455 S.W.3d 1, 5-6 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013). Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to whether the State introduced sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jeffrey , 400 S.W.3d 303, 312-13 (Mo. banc 2013). When determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence, but accept as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and ignore all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. at 313. However, we will not supply missing evidence, or give the State the benefit of unreasonable, speculative, or forced inferences. State v. Clark , 490 S.W.3d 704, 707 (Mo. banc 2016) ; State v. Glass , 439 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).
Section 569.080 provides: State v. Plopper , 489 S.W.3d 848, 853 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016). Defendant was charged with committing the offense of first-degree tampering for operating the truck in Perry County, Missouri.
We find the State failed to prove Defendant committed the offense of first-degree tampering in Missouri because the evidence fails to establish that Defendant operator the truck in Missouri. Missouri courts lack jurisdiction to prosecute violations of Missouri law unless the conduct constituting the offense, or some substantial portion of it, occurred within Missouri. State v. Taylor , 238 S.W.3d 145, 149 (Mo. banc 2007) ; State v. Kleen , 491 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Mo. banc 1973) ; Pennell v. State , 467 S.W.3d 367, 375 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) ; see also State ex rel. Laughlin v. Bowersox , 318 S.W.3d 695, 703 (Mo. banc 2010) (granting motion for post-conviction relief and discharging defendant where crime occurred on federal land because Missouri lacked jurisdiction under Section 541.191). Section 541.191.1 provides:
The standard of proof required to establish jurisdiction in a criminal case has not been definitively resolved in Missouri. State v. Hicks , No. WD79610, 526 S.W.3d 273, 275–77, 2017 WL 2436927 at *2 (Mo. App. W.D. June 6, 2017) (citing Williams , 455 S.W.3d at 6 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) ). The State's argument that proof of jurisdiction is the same as proof of venue and must only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt, lacks merit. There is a "fundamental difference between venue and jurisdiction," therefore "cases discussing the standard of proof for establishing venue offer no support as to the appropriate standard of proof for establishing jurisdiction." Id. However, we need not decide this issue because we are convinced the evidence adduced in this case was insufficient to establish Missouri has jurisdiction under either standard of proof.
Here, there was no evidence establishing Missouri had jurisdiction to convict Defendant for first-degree tampering. Defendant was not charged with an attempt or conspiracy, the offense of tampering does not involve an omission to perform a duty imposed by Missouri law, and there is no indication the tampering statute was intended to prohibit conduct outside of Missouri. Therefore, the only relevant basis for jurisdiction in this case was Section 541.191.1(1), which requires "[c]onduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct" to occur within Missouri. However, there was no evidence Defendant committed any element of the offense within the State of Missouri, or that a result of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lowery, ED 110259
...is the person who committed the offense, and the State bears the burden of proving this fact to the trial court." State v. Allen , 536 S.W.3d 241, 245 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Lowery first assails the credibility of Wraggs's identification of Lowe......
-
State v. Dixson
...not supply missing evidence, nor give the State the benefit of unreasonable, speculative or forced inferences. State v. Allen , 536 S.W.3d 241, 245-46 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). The evidence in this case proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of tampering occurred because the tires were......
-
State v. Lowery
...Casey Lowery was the person who committed murder in the second degree and armed criminal action in the alley behind 1147 Canaan. See Allen, 536 S.W.3d at 245. That is, any reasonable juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Lowery knowingly caused the death of Keiva Jones by, w......
-
State v. Kelliker
...gun's recovery makes any inference that they are the same weapon more forced and speculative. Kelliker relies on State v. Allen , 536 S.W.3d 241, 247 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017), where the court held that it was impermissible to infer that a defendant had operated a stolen vehicle in Missouri even......