State v. Horne, WD
| Decision Date | 29 August 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 778 S.W.2d 756 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald Gene HORNE, Appellant. 41245. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James F. Crews, Crews & Gaw, Tipton, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., William J. Swift, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SHANGLER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.
Donald Gene Horne was found guilty by a jury of acceding to corruption, § 576.020, RSMo 1986. The jury recommended a sentence of five years imprisonment and a fine to be set by the judge, but the court imposed sentence of imprisonment for three years with no fine. Horne contends the State failed to prove an agreement, error in the giving of an instruction, and error in failure to instruct on the defense of duress. Affirmed.
Horne was employed as a medical assistant at the Missouri State Penitentiary. As a medical assistant he had access to certain drugs in the penitentiary pharmacy. An inmate, Joe Copeland, worked with Horne in the medical office. Copeland testified that Horne sold drugs to Copeland and that Copeland told Arthur Dearixon, an investigator in the penitentiary. Dearixon delivered $130 to Copeland to give to Horne. Dearixon photocopied the bills which he gave Copeland. Later, Copeland told Dearixon when he had given the money to Horne. After learning that Copeland had delivered the money to Horne, Dearixon stopped Horne, as Horne was leaving the penitentiary, and searched him. Dearixon found $90 of the bills which he had given to Copeland in the possession of Horne.
Copeland testified that Horne had given him ten or eleven dilaudid pills for which he paid Horne $150. Horne later gave Copeland 100 dilaudid pills and Copeland paid him $690.
After Dearixon found the money on Horne, an inventory was conducted of the pharmacy and it was found that three bottles, containing 100 dilaudid tablets each, were missing.
Copeland testified that he used some of the drugs obtained from Horne, and the remainder he sold and gave away to other inmates.
Horne testified and admitted supplying the dilaudid pills to inmates. Horne testified he did so only because several inmates had threatened him by showing him pictures of his house and telling him that one day he would find himself with a knife in his back or that members of his family would be harmed.
Section 576.020, RSMo 1986, provides, so far as relevant to this case, that a public servant commits the crime of acceding to corruption if he knowingly solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit for his violation of a known legal duty as a public servant. The information charged that Horne knowingly accepted money in return for agreeing to deliver a benefit to an inmate of the Missouri State Penitentiary which was a violation of his known legal duty as a public servant.
Horne first contends that he was charged with entering into an agreement to deliver a benefit and the State failed to prove the agreement. The statute provides that the crime is committed by knowingly accepting any benefit. The information charged that Horne knowingly accepted money, a benefit, in return for agreeing to deliver a benefit to an inmate. Horne focuses on the word "agreeing" in the information, and contends that the State was required to prove that Horne entered into an agreement to deliver a benefit to an inmate, that the State failed to prove such agreement, and he was therefore entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.
The part of the information upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Collis
..."Using forcible compulsion" is surplus language. It is not necessary that the state prove the surplus language. State v. Horne, 778 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Mo.App.1989). Appellant was charged under § 566.060(3), RSMo Cum.Supp.1992, which reads, "A person commits the crime of sodomy if he has devia......
-
State v. Coats, 58386
...indicated that defendant should strike Littlejohn or that any threat could not have been avoided by walking away. See State v. Horne, 778 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Mo.App.1989). The instruction was not supported by substantial evidence and was properly refused. We find no plain error. Point six is D......
-
State v. Rogers
..."A" and "B" in the instant case. As explained in State v. Porter, 755 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Mo.App.W.D.1988), and State v. Horne, 778 S.W.2d 756, 757-58 (Mo.App.W.D.1989), a threat of future injury does not warrant a jury instruction on Appellant cites two other cases: State v. Lane, 834 S.W.2d 242 ......
-
State v. Scott, 70703
...guilt on the charge of acceding to corruption, and inconsistent with any reasonable theory of his innocence. See also State v. Horne, 778 S.W.2d 756 (Mo.App.1989). The dissent reads the indictment and the governing statute too narrowly. The term "acceding" is definitional, and not an essent......