State v. Todd, WD
| Decision Date | 15 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 805 S.W.2d 204 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David Allen TODD, Appellant. 42483. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Application to Transfer Denied April 9, 1991.
Andrew C. Webb, Sedalia, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GAITAN, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction of tampering with a witness, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 575.270.1 (1986), and from a sentence of two years imprisonment. Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
The judgment is reversed.
On February 10, 1989, Larry Tyler was visiting Sheila Oldenburg in her apartment in Sedalia, Missouri. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Paul Waller came to the apartment to ask Oldenburg to babysit for him. He was accompanied by appellant, who remained silent while Waller and Oldenburg conversed. Oldenburg told Waller that she was busy and could not help him.
Then, Tyler asked Waller about some money which Waller apparently owed him for a set of tires. Waller replied "I've got your money out here," and stepped out into the hallway, accompanied by appellant. Tyler followed Waller and appellant as far as the door of the apartment and, after appellant and Waller stepped out into the hallway, Tyler shut the door behind them.
After Tyler had returned to his seat in the living room, the door to the hallway flew open, and Waller and appellant re-entered the apartment. Waller walked up to Tyler and began beating him with a club. Appellant stood in the kitchen as the assault took place, and, despite Oldenburg's entreaties, did nothing to stop it. Instead, he told Oldenburg that "as long as there's no cops involved, there'll be nothing with you."
Shortly thereafter, Waller and appellant left the apartment. When the police arrived, Oldenburg was initially reluctant to talk. She then made an oral statement at the scene, followed by a written statement at the police station. Appellant was subsequently convicted of tampering with a witness and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment.
On appeal, appellant claims that Oldenburg's trial testimony was so contradictory that it had no probative value. He also claims that the State presented no evidence that he intended to induce Oldenburg to withhold evidence from the police. Therefore, he argues, there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.
However, there is another reason for our conclusion that the conviction in question cannot stand. It is elemental that the State has the burden of proving each and every element of a criminal offense, and that the State's failure to meet that burden mandates the reversal of any conviction obtained under those circumstances. State v. Fosdick, 776 S.W.2d 54, 55 (Mo.App.1989). Such is the case here.
Appellant was charged with tampering with a witness, which is defined in Mo.Rev.Stat. § 575.270.1 (1986) as follows:
1. A person commits the crime of "tampering with a witness" if, with purpose to induce a witness or a prospective witness in an official proceeding to disobey a subpoena or other legal process, or to absent himself or avoid subpoena or other legal process, or to withhold evidence, information or documents, or to testify falsely, he:
(1) Threatens or causes harm to any person or property; or
(2) Uses force, threats or deception; or
(3) Offers, conveys, or agrees to convey any benefit, direct or indirect, upon such witness; or
(4) Conveys any of the foregoing to another in furtherance of a conspiracy.
At trial, the jury was given MAI-CR 3d 329.86, the verdict-directing instruction which enumerates the elements of the crime of tampering with a witness. The third and fourth enumerated paragraphs of this instruction require that the defendant tamper with an actual or prospective witness in a judicial or other official proceeding, and that the defendant do so with the purpose of influencing the witness to withhold evidence or information in that proceeding.
In other words, the witness tampering verdict director based on § 575.270.1 makes the existence of a pending official proceeding a material element of the offense. The Eastern District Court of Appeals has recently stated that "[u]nder § 575.270, RSMo 1986, 'official proceeding' is an element of the offense." State v. Ward, 776 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Mo.App.1989) (); see also Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197, 205-07, 13 S.Ct. 542, 546, 37 L.Ed. 419 (1893); United States v. Vesich, 724 F.2d 451, 454 (5th Cir.1984) ().
The statutory definition of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wurtzberger
...State v. Moriarty, 914 S.W.2d 416, 422 (Mo. App. 1996); see also State v. White, 439 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Mo. 1969); State v. Todd, 805 S.W.2d 204, 207 (Mo. App. 1991); State v. Nations, 676 S.W.2d 282, 283 (Mo. App. 1984). This is so in that in a criminal case, the defendant has a constitution......
-
State v. Ortiz
...756 So.2d 1088, 1089 (Fla.App.2000) (statute expressly encompasses witness tampering in context of investigations); State v. Todd, 805 S.W.2d 204, 206 (Mo.App.1991) (statute requires that official proceeding is pending); State v. Kilgus, 125 N.H. 739, 742, 484 A.2d 1208 (1984) (statute expr......
-
State v. Owens
...the State's failure to meet that burden mandates the reversal of any conviction obtained under those circumstances." State v. Todd, 805 S.W.2d 204, 205 (Mo.App. W.D.1991) (emphasis 8. As noted above, an unopposed oral motion to amend the charge to attempted victim tampering was granted duri......
-
v. L.P., In Interest of
...the juvenile officer fails to meet that burden, a conviction obtained under those circumstances must be reversed. See State v. Todd, 805 S.W.2d 204, 205 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Bromley, 840 S.W.2d 288, 289 (Mo.App.1992). An appellate court must consider the evidence and all reasonable infer......