State v. Lehman

• Decision Date: 08 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. SC 98844,SC 98844
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher L. LEHMAN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

617 S.W.3d 843

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Christopher L. LEHMAN, Appellant.

No. SC 98844

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued March 8, 2021

Lehman was represented by Ellen H. Flottman of the public defender's office in Columbia, (573) 777-9977.

The state was represented by Evan J. Buchheim of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, (573) 751-3321.

Laura Denvir Stith, Judge

Christopher Lehman appeals his conviction for the class E felony of loitering within 500 feet of a public park in violation of section 566.150.¹ He contests the sufficiency of the evidence against him, arguing it failed to show he was knowingly within 500 feet of a public park or that he was loitering. He also argues section 556.150 is constitutionally invalid because it is overbroad and the term "loitering" is vague.

This Court agrees with Mr. Lehman that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for knowingly loitering within 500 feet of a public park. The State simply failed to present sufficient evidence from which the circuit court, as the factfinder, would be able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the distance to the park from the parking lot and community building in which Mr. Lehman admittedly was present was 500 feet or less. For that reason, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and this Court enters a judgment of acquittal.²

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Based on events occurring July 4, 2018, in Seligman, Missouri, the State charged Mr. Lehman with the class E felony of loitering within 500 feet of a public park in violation of section 566.150. Section 566.150.1(2) provides that an individual "shall not knowingly be present in or loiter within five hundred feet of any real property comprising any public park with playground equipment" if the person has been found guilty of incest in another state and if that conduct would violate section 568.020 if committed in Missouri. Mr. Lehman does not contest that he has a previous incest conviction from the state of Arkansas and that his conduct would have violated section 568.020 if committed in Missouri. The question at trial was whether he violated section 566.150 by loitering in a parking lot within 500 feet of a public park during Seligman's 2018 Fourth of July parade.

The case proceeded to a bench trial, during which the State introduced by stipulation between the parties only three pieces of evidence: 1) a criminal history record showing Mr. Lehman's prior guilty plea to felony incest in the state of Arkansas; 2) the police report from Seligman Police Chief Mike Phillips, the investigating and arresting officer in the case; and 3) video surveillance footage recorded on July 4, 2018, of the parking lot in which Chief Phillips saw Mr. Lehman and the inside of the local community building.

In his report, Chief Phillips’ wrote that he had been escorting a "4th of July parade from Dollar General to the City Park on Main Street." He said that, as the parade passed Joan Street, he spotted Mr. Lehman in a red cutoff shirt and blue jeans leaning against a silver van in the "parking lot of the City Park/City Hall." Chief Phillips’ report described the parking spot in which he saw Mr. Lehman as the "2nd parking place on the North side of the parking lot near the park." The report did not state what was meant by the parking lot being "near" the park or otherwise estimate or provide a measurement as to the distance between the city park and the parking spot where Chief Phillips saw Mr. Lehman. Neither was any other evidence of distance introduced. Chief Phillips’ report simply went on to state:

From previous encounters I knew [Mr. Lehman] to be a Registered Offender in the state of Missouri; [Mr. Lehman] was also not allowed within 500 Feet of a Park with equipment, the City Park has Swings, a Splash Pad and other various equipment. After dealing with other issues at the park for the 4th of July event, [Mr. Lehman] had left in the silver van.

Chief Phillips’ report then stated he had reviewed surveillance video from the parking lot and had discovered that Mr. Lehman had arrived before the parade started, had gone into the community building "located on the same lot as the City Park and City Hall," and had then come back out to watch the parade. The report also stated that, after his review of the surveillance video, Chief Phillips went to Mr. Lehman's residence and asked Mr. Lehman why he was at the community center. According to the report, Mr. Lehman responded that he had been there for the Fourth of July event; Chief Phillips "advised [Mr. Lehman] that he was not allowed within 500 [f]eet of a city park, [Mr. Lehman] advised that he was not aware that he wasn't allowed there." Chief Phillips then arrested Mr. Lehman.

The surveillance videos to which Chief Phillips’ report referred are from two mounted video cameras overlooking the parking lot in question as well as a third camera inside the local community building. The outside cameras show two different angles of the parking lot and the immediately surrounding area. In his report, Chief Phillips said Mr. Lehman was leaning on a silver van parked on the north side of the parking lot "near" the park and he saw Mr. Lehman near the van after passing Joan Street while escorting the parade down Main Street from the Dollar General to the park.

The surveillance video shows a parade of vehicles going from right to left down (presumably) Main Street and passing first a cross street (presumably Joan Street) and then a small grassy area before passing the parking lot where Chief Phillips said he saw Mr. Lehman. Although Chief Phillips said the parade went to the park, the parade does not stop at the parking lot but proceeds out of sight off the left side of the screen. People can be seen standing on the parade route on Main Street watching the vehicles pass Joan Street, the small grassy area, the parking lot, and out of view to the left. Although the image quality of the video is grainy, it is evident there are also trees and grassy areas across Main Street and Joan Street. Nothing shows whether any of these areas are the park, however, and no play equipment can be seen.

At various points throughout the surveillance footage, one can see a man in a red top and blue jeans. At one point, the man enters the community building, and, at another point, one can see him standing and watching a procession of vehicles go by on a road just beyond the parking lot, some with American flags.

Mr. Lehman does not quarrel with the State's identification of him as the man wearing the red shirt and blue jeans in the video, nor does he challenge the State's assertion that, at another point, he was leaning on a silver van in the second spot on the north end of the parking lot while watching the parade enter the screen view from the right and then proceed out of view to the left. Mr. Lehman does note, however—and the State conceded at oral argument—that none of the surveillance videos reveal any playground equipment or the "splash pad" or any other play equipment referred to in the police report, nor do they show anything that can be identified as "the park."

The State rested after introducing the police report, the surveillance videos, and evidence of Mr. Lehman's previous conviction. No witnesses testified. Mr. Lehman put on no evidence and, instead, moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence and at the close of all evidence. The circuit court overruled both motions. It found Mr. Lehman guilty and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment, suspended execution of that sentence, and placed him on probation for five years.

Mr. Lehman's timely appeal to the court of appeals raised four points of error: the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to prove he was knowingly within 500 feet of a public park; the State failed to prove he was "loitering"; section 566.150 is constitutionally invalid because it is vague; and section 566.150 is constitutionally invalid because it is overbroad. Finding Mr. Lehman's challenges to the constitutional validity of section 566.150 invoked this Court's exclusive appellate jurisdiction, the court of appeals transferred the case to this Court prior to opinion. Mo. Const. art. V, § 3.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In determining whether there is sufficient evidence "to support a conviction and to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal, this Court does not weigh the evidence but rather accepts as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and ignores all contrary evidences and inferences." State v. Gilmore, 537 S.W.3d 342, 344 (Mo. banc 2018) (alterations omitted), quoting, State v. Ess, 453 S.W.3d 196, 206 (Mo. banc 2015).³

Circumstantial rather than direct evidence of a fact is sufficient to support a verdict. State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 406 (Mo. banc 1993) . If that evidence supports equally valid inferences, it is up to the factfinder to determine which inference to believe, as "[t]he [factfinder] is permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the evidence as the evidence will permit." State v. Hineman, 14 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Mo. banc 1999) . Reliance on circumstantial evidence, however, does not permit this Court to "supply missing evidence or give the state the benefit of unreasonable, speculative or forced inferences." State v. Langdon, 110 S.W.3d 807, 811-12 (Mo. banc 2003) . "This Court asks only whether there was sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact reasonably could have found the defendant guilty." State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d 358, 362 (Mo. banc 2015) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added).

III. THE STATE FAILED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE FROM WHICH A FACTFINDER REASONABLY COULD CONCLUDE THAT LEHMAN WAS WITHIN 500 FEET OF A PUBLIC PARK

The State must prove every element of a crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Seeler, 316 S.W.3d 920, 925 (Mo. banc 2010)...