State v. Lammers

Decision Date09 February 2016
Docket NumberNo. SC 94977,SC 94977
Citation479 S.W.3d 624
Parties State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Blaec James Lammers, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Lammers was represented by Donald R. Cooley, an attorney in Springfield, (417) 831–3139.

The state was represented by Robert J. (Jeff) Bartholomew of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, (573) 751–3321.

Mary R. Russell, Judge

Blaec Lammers (Defendant) appeals his convictions for attempted first-degree assault and armed criminal action. Defendant, who was being treated for serious mental health issues, thought of a plan to commit a mass shooting after he had seen a video about the Columbine shootings1 and considered emulating them. He later purchased two assault rifles and engaged in target practice, despite having no experience using firearms. When his mother found out, she alerted the police. During the course of an interview at the police station, the police asked about his plan. Defendant admitted that he would have gone to the local Walmart, walked in, and started shooting at random.

On appeal, Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence of both elements of attempt: the intent to complete the crime and a substantial step toward completing it. He also argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence of his police interview. This Court holds that a reasonable fact-finder could have found that Defendant had the intent to commit first-degree assault and that his purchase of the assault rifles and target practice constituted substantial steps. Additionally, Defendant's police interview did not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The judgment is affirmed.

I. Factual & Procedural Background

At the time of the events leading to the convictions in this case, Defendant was 20 years old and lived at home with his parents south of Bolivar. Defendant was taking prescription drugs for depression and had been hospitalized a number of times for psychiatric problems. One of these hospitalizations occurred in 2009 after a psychotic episode at the local Walmart, in which the sheriff's office was called to intervene. Although Defendant's mother took efforts to ensure he took his medication, he did not like taking it and admitted that, in the past, he had sometimes "cheeked" his medication by hiding the pills in his mouth and pretending to swallow them.

On November 12 and 13, 2012, Defendant legally purchased two assault rifles (a .22 caliber and a .223 caliber) and ammunition from the Bolivar Walmart.2 Defendant and his girlfriend took the guns to the apartment of a mutual friend who had experience handling assault rifles because Defendant had never shot a gun before. The friend showed him how to sight and load the guns, and the two practiced shooting. After they finished, the friend took the guns to his apartment because Defendant did not want them at his parents' home as he knew his mother would not approve of him possessing guns. The next day, Defendant moved the guns to the home of his girlfriend's father.

The father, who evidently was aware to some extent of Defendant's past mental health issues, hesitantly agreed to store the guns. He testified at trial that he was leery of taking the guns because he wondered whether they could have been stolen. He voiced these concerns to Defendant and indicated that he would be "checking into" the guns and handing them over to authorities if there were any issues. The father stated that he did not believe it was Defendant's intent to leave the firearms with him permanently. He told Defendant he would keep them in a secure location and Defendant would have to come to him to get them back. The father was suspicious of why Defendant did not want his mother to know about the guns, so he contacted Defendant's mother.

Defendant's mother was very concerned when she heard Defendant was in possession of two assault rifles because she did not know where he obtained them. Later that night while doing laundry, she found a receipt from Walmart in Defendant's pants pocket confirming that he had purchased the assault rifles. The next day, Defendant's mother drove to the sheriff's office. She showed officers the receipts and voiced her concerns about Defendant's mental illness. She was worried that he might not be taking his medication and should not be in possession of guns. She testified that it was not her intent for Defendant to be arrested but, rather, for officers to keep an eye on him. She was worried that Defendant would get access to the guns and harm himself.

Later that day, officers from the Bolivar police department, having been notified of Defendant's mother's call, executed a "well-being" check on Defendant. Two officers found Defendant at the local Sonic Drive–In with his girlfriend in her vehicle. They told Defendant that his mother had contacted them because she was worried about him. They discussed his medication and the assault rifles. Defendant indicated that he had been taking his medication and that he planned to use the guns to go hunting, although he lacked a hunting license. The officers asked Defendant if he would come down to the police station to talk further. Defendant said that he would. He was not restrained in any way and rode to the police station in the front seat of one of the officer's unmarked cars.

At the police station, a Bolivar police detective interviewed Defendant. Defendant was not in handcuffs during the course of the interview, and the detective did not take any of his possessions from him. At the outset of the video-recorded interview, the detective told Defendant that, although he was not under arrest, he was going to read him his Miranda3 rights anyway. He asked Defendant whether he understood his rights, and Defendant replied that he did. The detective's primary goal throughout the interview was to ascertain why Defendant purchased the assault rifles. Defendant first stated that he intended to use them to go hunting, but said he abandoned this idea when, after purchasing the guns, he learned he would have to take a gun safety class and obtain a hunting license.4 The detective told Defendant he did not believe this story because Defendant bought the guns without telling his parents, these particular assault rifles were not typically used for hunting, and Defendant admitted that he had never been hunting before. Defendant next claimed that he had purchased the assault rifles because he thought guns were cool and just wanted to have one. He also stated that he thought owning a gun would impress his father, but that he did not tell his father because he would have said "No." The detective again said he thought Defendant was lying.

Defendant told the detective that his mother was concerned about him because she was worried that he might become a mass shooter. He agreed that there were similarities between himself and other mass shooters in that he had a mental illness, was somewhat of a "loner," had struggled with homicidal thoughts, and bought guns without telling anyone. During the interview, he admitted that, prior to purchasing the weapons, he had envisioned committing a mass shooting, specifically at the Bolivar Walmart, but that he changed his mind after taking target practice.

Officer: So tell me about your thoughts you had.
Defendant: Well I was watching ... there's this movie called April Showers. It's about Columbine.
Officer: Ok.
Defendant: Well, my sister was in it. And I was like oh it's just ... I want to see what it was about. It was a high school shooting and I was like ... I don't want, I was ... these thoughts were going through my head, like, what would happen if I ever did that. So I went out and bought them [the assault rifles] and then I realized I don't want to spend the rest of my life in prison. I don't want to do that.
Officer: But here, but here's the thing. You're not in school.
Defendant: No I'm out of school.
Officer: So you wouldn't shoot up ... where did you, where did you think about shooting up?
Defendant: Walmart.
Officer: Walmart?
Defendant: Yes sir. It was when I bought that. But then I realized when I went shooting ... I was like this, this isn't me. I don't know why I did this.

Later in the interview, Defendant described being in the Walmart on an occasion prior to when he bought the assault rifles. He was looking through magazines and thinking about concealed weapons:

Defendant: .... I was like oh that looks pretty cool.
Officer: And then it just came to you I'm going to shoot up Walmart?
Defendant: Yeah.

When asked about his plan specifically from start to finish, Defendant stated that he would just walk into the Walmart, start shooting people at random, and wait until police arrived. The detective then questioned why, if his target was Walmart, he did not act the same day he bought the guns. The detective asked Defendant if his actual target was a movie theater due to the similarities between these circumstances and the recent movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and the fact that the popular film "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn—Part 2" was scheduled to premiere the same week Defendant bought the assault rifles. Defendant admitted he had considered this, but reaffirmed that his real target would have been the Walmart because there was sure to be many people there and, if he ran out of ammunition, he could easily reload.

At the conclusion of the interview, the detective placed Defendant under arrest, charging him with attempted first-degree assault under section 565.050,5 armed criminal action under section 571.015 for committing first-degree assault by use of deadly weapon, and making a terroristic threat under section 574.115, RSMo Supp. 2002. Following a court-ordered mental examination, the trial court found Defendant mentally competent to stand trial, and Defendant waived his right to a jury trial. He filed a motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement during his interview. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
114 cases
  • State v. Melton, 253PA17
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 7, 2018
    ...846 (2016) ; People v. Hawkins , 311 Ill. App. 3d 418, 424, 243 Ill.Dec. 621, 723 N.E.2d 1222, 1226-27 (2000) ; State v. Lammers , 479 S.W.3d 624, 633 (Mo. 2016) (en banc).North Carolina has not adopted the MPC approach to attempt, nor has our legislature defined attempt by statute; instead......
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 14, 2020
    ...whether police conduct, such as a traffic stop, violates the Fourth Amendment is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. State v. Lammers , 479 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Mo. banc 2016). The question of whether crossing the "fog line" is a traffic violation is an issue of statutory interpretation......
  • State v. Higgs
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 2022
    ...officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions." State v. Marr , 499 S.W.3d 367, 373 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (quoting State v. Lammers , 479 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Mo. banc 2016) ). Rather, a " ‘seizure’ occurs ‘[o]nly when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has......
  • Pennell v. Pash
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • March 20, 2019
    ...due to police interception, because his actions strongly corroborate the purpose of the intended delivery. See State v. Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624, 633 (Mo. 2016) (holding that purchasing assault rifles and practicing shooting them were substantial steps towards the commission of the offense o......
  • 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