State v. Mann, No. 25342.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Robert S. Barney |
| Citation | 129 S.W.3d 462 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 25342. |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tony MANN, Appellant. |
v.
Tony MANN, Appellant.
[129 S.W.3d 463]
James R. Hobbs, Marilyn B. Keller, Wyrsch, Hobbs, & Mirakian, P.C., Kansas City, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Leslie E. McNamara, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.
ROBERT S. BARNEY, Presiding Judge.
Tony Mann, ("Appellant") appeals his conviction and sentence for assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree, § 565.081.1, and armed criminal action, § 571.015.1 Following a court-tried case, Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for the first degree assault charge, and to ten years in prison for armed criminal action, the terms to run concurrently. In his sole point on appeal, Appellant posits that the trial court erred in denying his
motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to convict him on either of the aforementioned charges due to the failure of Respondent to prove Appellant's "specific intent to seriously injure or kill," as required under section 565.081.1. We affirm.
Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the verdict, State v. Bewley, 68 S.W.3d 613, 615 (Mo.App.2002), the record reveals that on the evening of October 4, 2001, two Springfield police officers, Officer David Shanholtzer and Officer David Meyer, were conducting surveillance on Appellant's residence in an unmarked police car. While the officers were watching Appellant's house, Appellant rode past them several times on a motorized scooter and then proceeded to operate the scooter in a reckless manner by swerving into oncoming lanes of traffic. The officers decided to initiate a traffic stop of Appellant for driving the scooter erratically, but by the time they pulled out of their location, they had lost sight of him.
After driving around the block several times, the officers once again encountered Appellant, who was now riding a bicycle. As Appellant rode past them, Officer Meyer identified himself as a police officer and asked Appellant if they could talk to him for a minute. Appellant answered, "No," and continued riding past the officers.
The officers activated the "red dash lights," on their vehicle and turned the vehicle around in an attempt to pursue Appellant. The officers followed Appellant until he veered off the street and rode in between two houses. The officers then parked and secured their vehicle, grabbed their hand-held radios, and went in search of Appellant. Officer Meyer proceeded down the street and Officer Shanholtzer walked quickly toward the house where Appellant had last been spotted.
Coming around the back of the house in the darkness, Officer Shanholtzer saw Appellant in the beam of his flashlight about thirty yards away. Appellant was "standing back behind the waist-high fence ... facing [Shanholtzer] with his hands down in his waist area, below the vegetation in the fence and [where Shanholtzer] couldn't clearly see his hands." Officer Shanholtzer yelled for Appellant to show his hands, and when Appellant raised his hands, Appellant fired a shot at the officer. Officer Shanholtzer described the report of the shot as being "loud" and that he "saw the flash from the muzzle of the gun." Officer Shanholtzer then took cover behind a shed and drew his "duty gun". Officer Meyer came running up behind him and they radioed for back-up. When Officer Shanholtzer peered out from behind the shed, Appellant was no longer there. Fearing that Appellant might "ambush [them] again from that location," the officers retreated to their vehicle and awaited assistance.
Once "back-up" arrived, a canine officer tracked Appellant's scent from the scene of the shooting back to his residence. Shortly after midnight gas was deployed into Appellant's house in an effort to force him to surrender. Approximately five to ten minutes later Appellant emerged from the residence and was arrested. Subsequent to procuring a search warrant, the special investigations unit began to search Appellant's home. The search revealed several handguns, including one which had a bullet in the chamber, a backpack containing ammunition, as well as numerous boxes of ammunition throughout the house.2
At trial, Appellant testified that "scared" and "in a panic," he had "[tried]to get away" from the officers. He stated that he knew he had a pistol in the "tool pouch" of his mountain bike and that he could get in trouble for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Specifically, he testified, "I had something I wasn't supposed to have with me, and I was trying to get away. And by this time, I'd decided that they are police, and I hear them yelling. And I take the pistol out of the bag and fire it skyward... to get a little distance from them." He stated that he never intended to hit Officer Shanholtzer with the bullet and that he "wasn't trying to hurt anyone," although he admittedly "fire[d] a gun in the proximity" of a police officer. Additionally, Appellant testified that he fired a single shot, although his weapon was capable of being fired in rapid succession. He stated he "wasn't trying to have a gun battle or anything of that nature." Asked on cross-examination whether he had been using methamphetamine for several days prior to the incident, Appellant answered, "I'd done some methamphetamine, yes."
At the close of all the evidence, Appellant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, which was denied by the trial court. The trial court found Appellant "guilty of assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty of armed criminal action." Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree and 10 years for armed criminal action, with the sentences to run concurrently to each other and to the federal offense Appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrow v. Pash, Case No. 15-0206-CV-W-GAF-P
...it is used, results, and other relevant factors.'"" Bryant v. State, 316 S.W.3d 503, 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (quoting State v. Mann, 129 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004)). It is a permissible and reasonable inference from this evidence that the person who shot and killed the victim als......
-
McAllister v. Redington, No. 4:16cv558 RLW
...v. Keeler, 856 S.W.2d 928, 931 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993). Specific intent is generally shown through circumstantial evidence. State v. Mann, 129 S.W.3d 462, 467 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004). Intent may be inferred from surrounding facts, such as the type of weapon used, the manner and circumstances unde......
-
State v. Fraga, No. 26709.
...cause physical injury is most often proven by circumstantial evidence. State v. Stiegler, 129 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Mo.App.2003); State v. Mann, 129 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Mo.App.2004); State v. Burton, 863 S.W.2d 16, 17 (Mo.App.1993). Furthermore, "[a] defendant's mental state may be reasonably inferred ......
-
Mann v. Yarnell, No. 06-2326.
...action, the Missouri Court of Appeals provided a more extensive recitation of the facts leading up to Mann's arrest. See State v. Mann, 129 S.W.3d 462 3. The Springfield Police Department's Standard Operating Guideline for the use of force permits the use of what officer Yarnell refers to a......