State v. Myles
| Decision Date | 08 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 101486,ED 101486 |
| Citation | 479 S.W.3d 649 |
| Parties | State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eric Myles, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Srikant Chigurupati, 1010 Market St., Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.
Chris Koster, Daniel N. McPherson, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Appellant Eric Myles ("Myles") appeals from the judgment entered by the trial court following a jury verdict finding Myles guilty of one count of first-degree assault (Count I), one count of first-degree robbery (Count III), and two counts of armed criminal action (Counts II and IV). In his first two points on appeal, Myles contends that the trial court committed plain error by submitting Jury Instruction No. 6, the State's verdict director for Count I, to the jury; and by submitting Jury Instruction No. 8, the State's verdict director for Count III, to the jury. In the remaining points on appeal, Myles challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions as to Counts I–IV, asserting that the trial court erred in accepting the jury's guilty verdicts. Because the trial court did not plainly err in submitting Jury Instructions Nos. 6 and 8 to the jury, and because sufficient evidence was presented at trial from which a reasonable juror could have found the essential elements of each of the charged crimes in Counts I–IV beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Myles was tried before a jury in February of 2014 and convicted of one count of first-degree assault (Count I), one count of first-degree robbery (Count III), and two counts of armed criminal action (Counts II and IV). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the following evidence was adduced at trial.
On January 10, 2012, Victim stopped at a gas station in the City of St. Louis, While walking back to his car, a man with a gun approached Victim and stated that he was robbing Victim. Victim grabbed the gun and struggled with the man. Two other men intervened, punching Victim and hitting him in the head with a hard object. The man with the gun then shot Victim. Victim's car was taken after the shooting. Victim testified that he could not identify any of the three men who attacked him.
Victim's car was found on January 11, 2012, in front of a home. The homeowner told police the car had been brought there by Anthony Greene ("Greene"). Greene was subsequently taken into custody and questioned by the police. Following Greene's interview, Myles was taken into custody and questioned. Myles initially denied any involvement in the robbery and shooting, but he changed his story once the police showed him a portion of Greene's interview in which Greene stated that he, Myles, and Antwon Johnson ("Johnson") were involved. At that point, Myles stated that Greene and Johnson were his cousins, and that the three men were at Johnson's home when they decided to go out on a "mission." Myles explained that "mission" meant going out and doing something bad. Myles stated that the three men went to the gas station, and that he and Greene stood at a bus stop across the street while Johnson approached Victim. Myles told police that Johnson pulled a gun on Victim, and that once the struggle ensued, Greene choked Victim and Myles hit Victim with a closed fist. Myles later stated that he hit Victim with a brick. Myles also stated that Johnson shot Victim after Myles and Greene pulled Victim off of Johnson.
At trial, Myles denied being at the scene of the crime when the robbery and shooting occurred. The detective who interviewed Myles testified that the portion of Greene's interview that was played for Myles did not include the details of the crime that Myles provided when the police interviewed Myles. Before the jury instruction conference, and before the case was submitted to the jury, Myles made a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence which was denied by the trial court. The case was subsequently submitted to the jury.
Count I, the charge of first-degree assault, was submitted to the jury in Jury Instruction No. 6, which read as follows:
Count III, the charge of first-degree robbery, was submitted to the jury in Jury Instruction No. 8, which read as follows:
Jury Instruction No. 5 was also submitted to the jury. Jury Instruction No. 5 read as follows:
A person is responsible for his own conduct and he is also responsible for the conduct of other persons in committing an offense if he acts with the other persons with the common purpose of committing that offense or if, for the purpose of committing that offense, he aids the other persons in committing it.
During the jury instruction conference, the trial court asked Myles's counsel if she had any objections to the proposed verdict directing instructions. Counsel responded, "No, Judge." The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts, and the trial court sentenced Myles to a total of twenty years' imprisonment. Myles subsequently filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. No claim of instructional error was raised by Myles in his motion for new trial. This appeal follows.
Myles presents four points on appeal. Myles's first two points on appeal assert plain error by the trial court relating to jury instructions, while his latter two points challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Myles contends that the trial court committed plain error resulting in manifest injustice by submitting Jury Instruction No. 6, the State's verdict director on the charged offense of first-degree assault and Jury Instruction No. 8, the State's verdict director on the charged offense of first-degree robbery. In Point One, Myles avers that the trial court committed plain error in submitting Jury Instruction No. 6 because (1) it was not a Missouri Approved Jury Instruction; (2) it did not comply with the MAI–CR notes on use for the submission of offenses based on accomplice liability; (3) it did not require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Myles acted with the culpable mental state necessary to commit first-degree assault under a theory of accomplice liability; and (4) it permitted the jury to find Myles guilty of first-degree assault as a principal despite no evidentiary support for that finding. In Point Two, Myles argues that the trial court committed plain error in submitting Jury Instruction No. 8 because (1) it was not a Missouri Approved Jury Instruction; (2) it did not comply with the MAI–CR notes on use for the submission of offenses based on accomplice liability; (3) it did not require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Myles acted with the culpable mental state necessary to commit first-degree robbery under a theory of accomplice liability; and (4) it ascribed conduct elements to Myles for which there was no evidentiary support.
In his remaining two points on appeal, Myles contends that the trial court erred in accepting the jury's guilty verdicts and entering convictions against him on Counts I and II. Myles asserts that the verdict-directing instruction for Count I, Jury Instruction No. 6, permitted the jury to find Myles guilty of first-degree assault either on a theory of principal liability or accomplice liability despite the fact that there was no evidentiary support for a guilty finding based on principal liability. Myles also argues that because his conviction on Count II, armed criminal action, is premised upon the first-degree assault charge in Count I, his conviction on Count II cannot stand on its own. Finally, Myles maintains that the trial court erred in accepting the jury's guilty verdicts and entering convictions against him as to Counts III and IV. Specifically, Myles claims that the verdict-directing instruction for Count III, Jury Instruction No. 8, required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Myles had committed certain conduct elements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McBenge
...the question of sufficiency is really an issue of whether the charge should have been submitted to the jury. See State v. Myles , 479 S.W.3d 649, 660 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).1. Standard of ReviewAppellate review of a claim that there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction i......
-
State v. Robinson
...the burden of showing the occurrence of plain error resulting in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. State v. Myles, 479 S.W.3d 649, 655–56 (Mo.App.E.D.2015). The analysis proceeds in two steps. State v. Smith, 370 S.W.3d 891, 896 (Mo.App.E.D.2012) (internal citation omitted). F......
-
In re Interest of S.B.A.
...accomplice liability, all persons who act in concert to commit an offense are equally responsible for the act. Id. ; State v. Myles, 479 S.W.3d 649, 660 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). In addition, "[a] [person] who embarks upon a course of criminal conduct with others is responsible for those [offen......
-
State v. Oliver
...when clear and obvious, instructional error seldom constitutes plain error." Robinson , 484 S.W.3d at 870 (citing State v. Myles , 479 S.W.3d 649, 655-56 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) ). We will only find plain error "when the claimed error actually resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of......