State v. Morrow, 18935
Decision Date | 01 December 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 18935,18935 |
Citation | 888 S.W.2d 387 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gregory MORROW, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lyle M. Gregory, Caruthersville, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jennifer A. Glancy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
A jury found defendant guilty on two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030.1(3), 1 and he was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to a term of ten years' imprisonment on Count I and four years' imprisonment on Count II, the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's sole point is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss one count, in violation of his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause, "and applicable Missouri common and statutory law in that the act of shooting into the dwelling was a continuous course of conduct since testimony established that it occurred on the same occasion, all shots hit the same house, and all shots fired were fired in rapid succession."
Section 571.030 reads, in pertinent part:
"1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he knowingly:
... (3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house....
4. Unlawful use of weapons is a class D felony unless...."
In addition to its formal parts and allegations of defendant's prior convictions, Count I charged "that on or about October 23, 1992, in the County of Pemiscot, State of Missouri, the defendant knowingly shot a firearm into a dwelling house located at Burton Street, Steele, Missouri." Except for being captioned "Count II" instead of "Count I," Count II was identical to Count I. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction on Count I. He requests reversal of his conviction on Count II.
The state's evidence showed that on October 23, 1992, Brian Rogers and his wife and their two-year-old son lived in a house at 201 Burton Street, Steele, Missouri, in Pemiscot County. Rogers went to bed at 10:30 p.m. He was awakened by the noise of glass breaking. Upon investigation, he found that his son's bedroom had been penetrated by shots from a shotgun. The outside of his house bore more than two shotgun blast patterns. Patrolman Jim Morton, of the Steele Police Department, found three spent shotgun shells on a railroad track about 50 yards from the Rogers house.
Prior to the shooting, Steve Brown, Tim Collins, and Jeff Cunningham were near the Rogers house drinking beer. Defendant arrived carrying a 12-gauge pump shotgun. Defendant told the trio he was going to "shoot up this house." The trio decided to leave. Brown saw defendant point the shotgun at the Rogers house and heard "anywhere from three to six shots." Brown said, "When I heard the shots go off, they were real quick, one right after the other." Cunningham testified that he saw defendant with the shotgun and heard four shots fired. Then defendant "came running past me on the tracks."
Instruction 8, the verdict-director on Count I, read, in pertinent part:
Instruction 9, the verdict-director on Count II, was identical to Instruction 8 except that it used "Count II" in the two places where Instruction 8 used "Count I."
The court also gave Instruction 12, which read:
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on Count I and a separate verdict of guilty on Count II.
The mere fact that Count I and Count II were identical does not invalidate either count, State v. Martin, 852 S.W.2d 844, 856 (Mo.App.1992), or render either count insufficient, State v. Riggs, 770 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Mo.App.1989).
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." The Fifth Amendment is made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2062, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969).
The Missouri Constitution provides that no person shall "be put again in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense, after being once acquitted by a jury...." Mo. Const. art. I, § 19. Since defendant was never acquitted by a jury, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Missouri Constitution does not apply to his case. State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184, 186 (Mo. banc 1992); State v. Shive, 624 S.W.2d 136, 138, n. 3 (Mo.App.1981). As pointed out in State v. Richardson, 460 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Mo. banc 1970), however, Missouri enforces the common law rule that no person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy. Our supreme court there said, "We find no readily discernible difference between the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy and the common law guarantee as applied in this state." Defendant's protection from double jeopardy under Missouri law is coextensive with that afforded by the Fifth Amendment.
Referring to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the court, in State v. Nichols, 865 S.W.2d 435 (Mo.App.1993), said, at 437[1,2]:
State v. Foster, 838 S.W.2d 60, 66[13,14] (Mo.App.1992) (citations omitted).
The basic inquiry is whether the legislature, in enacting § 571.030.1(3), intended to allow, as a unit of prosecution, the discharging or shooting of one shot from a firearm into a dwelling house. For the reasons which follow, this court holds that such was the legislative intent and that defendant's point has no merit.
Defendant's able counsel, who preserved his point at every stage of the trial court proceedings, argues:
The excellent brief of the state counters with this argument:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rasabout
...defendant at pursuing police over a span of fifteen minutes constituted six separate counts of wanton endangerment); State v. Morrow, 888 S.W.2d 387, 392–93 (Mo.Ct.App.1994) ( “The conduct proscribed is complete on one shot. A subsequent shot, whether moments or a substantial amount of time......
-
State v. Goins
...457 (1998) (finding as to two consecutive shots into a vehicle each shot constituted a “discrete physical act”); State v. Morrow, 888 S.W.2d 387, 392–93 (Mo.Ct.App.1994) (“The conduct proscribed is complete on one shot. A subsequent shot, whether moments or a substantial amount of time late......
-
Waggoner v. State
...legislature intended to permit a separate conviction for each angry display of a knife in the same fight or transaction ); State v. Morrow, 888 S.W.2d at 392-93 (holding that, in enacting section 571.030.1(3), which makes it an offense for a person to knowingly discharge or shoot a firearm ......
-
State v. Hill
...forbids the state from splitting a single crime into separate parts and then prosecuting the offense in piece-meal." State v. Morrow, 888 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Mo.App.1994). On the other hand, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect a defendant from being punished for more than one offense w......