State v. Arnold

Decision Date05 March 2007
Docket NumberNo. 27406.,27406.
Citation216 S.W.3d 203
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lawrence T. ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Rosalynn Koch, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., and Cecily L. Daller, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

GARY W. LYNCH, Judge.

Lawrence T. Arnold ("Defendant") was convicted following a jury trial of the class A felony of attempted escape from confinement, in violation of § 575.210,1 the unclassified felony of armed criminal action, in violation of § 571.015, and the class A felony of kidnapping, in violation of § 565.110.2 Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender, under § 558.016,3 to consecutive terms of 30 years for attempted escape, 250 years for armed criminal action, and life imprisonment for kidnapping. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence, entering judgment against him, and sentencing him on his convictions. Defendant contends the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed attempted escape and armed criminal action by using a dangerous instrument, or that he used his alleged kidnapping victim as a hostage or a shield. We affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The State presented its case through the testimony of four officers who were present at the Miller County Adult Detention Center during the events that occurred on July 21, 2004. Officers Vicki Fields ("Officer Fields"), John Freeman ("Officer Freeman"), and Fred Perkins ("Officer Perkins") are correctional officers at the jail who were working the 4 p.m. shift together. Officer Billy Risen ("Officer Risen") is a road sergeant with the Miller County Sheriff's Department who was patrolling between 4 and 6 p.m. and was dispatched to the jail. According to their testimony, the following events transpired on that date.

During the first part of Officer Field's shift, she and Officer Perkins were working in the booking area of the jail. Defendant and another inmate, John Reynolds ("Reynolds"), asked to do some legal research, and Officer Fields retrieved them from their housing area and brought them down to a holding cell in the booking area that contained a cart with some legal books. While they were locked in the cell doing research, Officer Perkins left to take the elevator up to the observation tower and relieve Officer Freeman, who was working in the tower. After Officer Perkins left, Defendant and Reynolds asked Officer Fields to make some copies for them on the copy machine located in the hallway of the booking area. As Officer Fields unlocked the door to the cell to retrieve the book, the two inmates rushed the door, and Reynolds grabbed Officer Fields around the neck and forcefully pushed a sharp object to her neck underneath her jaw bone. Defendant told Reynolds to "go ahead and kill [her]." Reynolds whispered in Officer Fields' ear that if she did everything Defendant said, she would not be hurt.

Just after Officer Perkins arrived in the tower to relieve Officer Freeman, Officer Freemen looked at the tower's monitors and saw that Defendant had entered the booking area, where he was not supposed to be. Officer Freeman immediately told Officer Perkins to contact dispatch for back-up, and took the elevator down. When the elevator doors opened, Officer Freeman saw Defendant running toward him with Officer Fields' duty belt in hand. Defendant and Officer Freeman shoved each other into the booking area, where Officer Freeman saw Reynolds holding Officer Fields around the neck from behind with an ink pen to her throat. At that point, both Defendant and Reynolds beat and kicked Officer Freeman to the floor until he was unconscious.

Defendant then handcuffed one of Officer Fields' arms and grabbed the other end of the handcuffs, pulling her down the hallway toward the door that opens into the deputies' room. That room leads to an electronically secured door which accesses the outside of the jail. Officer Risen was in the deputies' room when he saw Defendant open the door and enter with Officer Fields in front of him, holding her around the neck with a ball-point pen to her throat. Officer Risen, with his gun drawn, but pointed away from Defendant and Officer Fields, told Defendant he could not leave and needed to put the pen down, but Defendant responded that unless Officer Risen allowed him to leave, "he was going to kill her." Officer Risen again told Defendant he could not let him leave, and Defendant said that he needed to be released or else he would kill someone. When Officer Risen refused for a third time to let him leave, Defendant retreated back through the door, pulling Officer Fields with him.

Defendant proceeded to run from one end of the hallway to the other and back again numerous times, pulling Officer Fields along with him and negotiating with people at the doors on either end. He ordered Officer Fields to tell the negotiators that he had a gun, and she complied. Meanwhile, Reynolds gave up and locked himself in a holding cell. Defendant and Reynolds were eventually taken back into custody, about three hours after they initially accosted and apprehended Officer Fields.

At the close of the State's evidence, Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied the motion.

The defense case was presented via the testimony of three witnesses. For purposes of this appeal, the relevant testimony was provided by Defendant.4

Defendant testified that although Reynolds had been talking for a few days about escaping by going down to do legal research and taking Officer Fields hostage, he did not know Reynolds was planning on doing it this particular time they went to research. Reynolds was the one who rushed the door and grabbed Officer Fields, and Defendant did not come out of the cell immediately. When he did come out, he walked down the hall and met up with Officer Freeman, who swung at him and tried to mace him. They got into a fist fight, and Defendant told Officer Freeman to stay down on the floor and quit fighting. He never held Officer Fields hostage or told anyone he would kill her, or held a pen to her throat; only Reynolds did that. But Defendant admitted that he began negotiating with officers "[p]retty much immediately," that he held onto Officer Fields and stood her in front of him as he tried to enter the deputies' room, and that he placed her in handcuffs.

At the close of all the evidence, Defendant filed another motion for judgment of acquittal. The trial court also denied that motion. After Defendant was convicted, he appealed.

II. Standard of Review

Our role in reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence upon which a defendant was convicted is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror might conclude that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mubarak, 163 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Mo.App.2005). We accept as true all evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom tending to support the verdict, and we disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Escoe, 78 S.W.3d 170, 172-73 (Mo.App.2002). "The question is whether the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to support the verdict." State v. Collins, 188 S.W.3d 69, 73 (Mo.App.2006). This court will give great deference to the trier of fact and will not act as a "super juror" with veto powers. Escoe, 78 S.W.3d at 172. "Therefore, we do not weigh the evidence or determine the reliability or credibility of witnesses." State v. Daniels, 179 S.W.3d 273, 285 (Mo.App.2005).

Defendant initially filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case. After that motion was denied, Defendant presented evidence on his own behalf. Thereafter, the trial court denied Defendant's subsequent motion for judgment of acquittal filed at the close of all the evidence. "We take note of this procedural posture because it affects the scope of our review." State v. Mitchell, 203 S.W.3d 246, 249 (Mo.App.2006). "`When a defendant introduces evidence on his own behalf, after the overruling of his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case, the sufficiency of the evidence must be determined upon the entire record considering any incriminating evidence developed during the defendant's case.'" Id. (quoting State v. Rivers, 554 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Mo.App.1977)).

III. Discussion

Point I — Ink pen used as a dangerous instrument

In his first point relied on, Defendant contends the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed attempted escape and armed criminal action by using a dangerous instrument, because the ink pen "did not create a danger of death or serious physical injury." Defendant was charged with attempted escape from confinement, in violation of § 575.210.5 Defendant was also charged with committing armed criminal action in violation of § 571.015.6 The jury was instructed that in order to convict on the offense of attempted escape the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Defendant and Reynolds overpowered Officer Fields and Officer Freeman and tried to exit the jail; (2) their conduct was a substantial step toward the commission of the offense of escape; (3) they engaged in such conduct for the purpose of committing escape; and (4) the attempt to commit escape was effected by means of a dangerous instrument. The jury was further instructed: "Unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the attempt to commit escape was effected by means of a dangerous instrument, you must find the defendant not guilty under Count 5 of the class A felony of attempted escape from confinement as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Arnold v. Dormire
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • May 22, 2012
    ...and assault. He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 280 years. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Arnold, 216 S.W.3d 203 (Mo.Ct.App.2007). Arnold then filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief in the state circuit court. Counsel was appointed, and an amended ......
  • Arnold v. Dormire
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • December 22, 2010
    ...On March 5, 2007, the Missouri Court of Appeals denied Arnold's direct appeal and affirmed his convictions. State v. Arnold, 216 S.W.3d 203, 210 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). On May 30, 2007, Arnold filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. Counsel was......
  • State v. Ransburg
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 20, 2016
  • State v. Rousselo
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 3, 2013
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT