State v. McGowan
| Decision Date | 22 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 789 S.W.2d 242 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael McGOWAN, Appellant. 42372. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Daniel C. Miller, Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert P. Sass, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SHANGLER, P.J., and CLARK and BERREY, JJ.
Michael McGowan was convicted of one count of second degree assault, three counts of third degree assault and one count of armed criminal action, all the result of a street gang confrontation which occurred October 16, 1988. On this appeal from the convictions, McGowan contends the state failed to make a submissible case and that he should be discharged.
The uncontroverted evidence established the following facts. McGowan was a member of a gang known as the Chouteau Boys. That group had an ongoing conflict with a rival gang of which one Omar Wright was a member. On the evening in question, McGowan and others of the Chouteau Boys met to discuss plans for a confrontation with Omar Wright. After concluding they should go in search of Wright, McGowan and four of the other gang members set out in a pick-up truck to settle differences with the rival gang. Wright was armed with a revolver and his companions had shotguns, another revolver and a semi-automatic rifle.
When the McGowan group reached an area known to be frequented by Omar Wright, a number of shots were fired by those in the truck, although Wright had not been sighted. The truck continued on and there was further gunfire when Wright and others of his gang were located. Four bystanders were wounded by bullets and shotgun pellets and one member of Wright's group was also struck in the series of shootings. There was no evidence showing that McGowan ever fired his revolver or that any of the victims' injuries resulted from bullets discharged from McGowan's weapon.
The claim by appellant that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for assault and armed criminal action is based on his argument that it was essential for the state to show more than his mere presence with the other gang members who committed the crimes. He contends he could not be convicted without proof of his actual participation in the shootings.
Aiders and abettors who act with common purpose with active participants in the crime incur criminal liability by any form of affirmative advancement of the enterprise. State v. Gannaway, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Howard, s. 18265
...a defendant in the crime is sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Blount, 734 S.W.2d 309, 310 (Mo.App.1987)." State v. McGowan, 789 S.W.2d 242, 243 (Mo.App.1990). As to intent, the general rule is that "[i]f an accomplice has a purpose to promote an offense, he may be found to have t......
-
State v. Skelton, s. 18671
...with others involved before, during, and after commission. State v. Forister, 823 S.W.2d 504, 508 (Mo.App.E.D.1992); State v. McGowan, 789 S.W.2d 242, 243 (Mo.App.W.D.1990). Here, it was Appellant who, upon learning Pardue had a Social Security check, repeatedly urged him to cash it. Appell......
-
State v. Gordon, s. WD
...liability, then proof that defendant himself fired the fatal shots is not essential to support his conviction. State v. McGowan, 789 S.W.2d 242, 243 (Mo.App.1990). To the contrary, in order to sustain Mr. Gordon's conviction for accomplice liability, the State simply needed to prove that Mr......
-
State v. Robinson
...or attempting to commit the offense. . . . The Western District of this court explained accomplice liability in State v. McGowan, 789 S.W.2d 242 (Mo.App.1990). Aiders and abettors who act with common purpose with active participants in the crime incur criminal liability by any form of affir......