State v. Turner
| Decision Date | 10 July 2001 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) State of Missouri, Respondent v. Billy Dale Turner, Appellant. WD58581 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Boone County, Hon. Larry A. Bryson
Counsel for Appellant: Craig Johnston
Counsel for Respondent: Connie Sullivan
Opinion Summary: Billy Turner appeals his bench-trial conviction for peace disturbance, section 574.010, RSMo 2000, and suspended sentence of six months in the county jail. He contends the court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal because insufficient evidence was presented to support the conviction. He also contends the court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss because section 574.010 is unconstitutionally overbroad in regulating speech.
Division Three holds: (1) Because Margaret Patrick observed Mr. Turner bending down by her car, subsequently found that two of her tires had been slashed, believed Mr. Turner had done it, called 911 to report the incident, and knew Mr. Turner heard her tell police that he slashed her tires, there was sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could find that Mr. Turner unreasonably or knowingly disturbed or alarmed Ms. Patrick when he threatened to kill her and that Mr. Turner's apparent conduct and threatening statement in Ms. Patrick's presence were likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that he might carry out his threat.
(2) Because Mr. Turner did not raise his constitutional challenge to section 574.010 until his motion to dismiss at the close of the State's case, he did not properly preserve the question for review, and transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court is not necessary.
Billy Turner appeals his conviction following bench trial for peace disturbance, section 574.010, RSMo 2000, and suspended sentence of six months in the county jail. He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal because insufficient evidence was presented to support the conviction. He also contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss because section 574.010 is unconstitutionally overbroad in regulating speech. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
On the night of September 9, 1999, Margaret Patrick and her sister, Erin Patrick, were working at Midway USA in Boone County. At approximately 10:00 p.m., Margaret saw the appellant, Billy Turner, park his van behind her car, exit the vehicle, bend down beside her car, and then leave four or five minutes later. Margaret and her sister got off work at 10:30 p.m., and when they started to drive home in Margaret's car, they discovered that it had two flat tires. The two flat tires had been cut. They then "coasted" the car to the nearby truck stop.
At the truck stop, Erin attempted to put air in the flat tires, and Margaret went inside to call the police on a pay phone. She called 911, and the 911 dispatcher asked her if she knew who slashed her tires. Margaret told the dispatcher that the person who had slashed her tires was standing in front her. Margaret was referring to the appellant, Billy Turner. At the time she told the dispatcher this, Mr. Turner was standing "close enough that [she] looked at him and he heard [her]." Mr. Turner was standing with Tom Nelson, his friend and Margaret's stepfather. In response to Margaret's telephone statement to the police, Mr. Turner yelled the address of where the police could find him.
Margaret completed her call to the police and hung up the phone. Mr. Turner then turned to Tom and said either, "Tom, I'm going to kill her,"1 or "Tom, let's go, because I'm threatening to kill this black bitch."2 Erin, Tom, Mr. Turner's girlfriend, and a security guard were present when Mr. Turner made the statement. Margaret testified that she was alarmed and scared by the threat. Immediately after the threat, Mr. Turner, his girlfriend, and Tom Nelson left. Margaret and Erin waited at the truck stop for the police to file a complaint. Soon after the incident, Mr. Turner was charged by amended information with one count of class A misdemeanor peace disturbance, section 574.010.
The case was tried to the court. At the close of the State's evidence, Mr. Turner moved to dismiss the case asserting that the peace disturbance statute under which he was charged violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The trial court overruled the motion. The defense then introduced evidence that Mr. Turner did not threaten Margaret. At the close of all of the evidence, Mr. Turner renewed his motion to dismiss arguing that section 574.010 was unconstitutionally overbroad. He also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. The trial court again overruled Mr. Turner's motion and found him guilty of the offense. The trial court subsequently sentenced Mr. Turner to a suspended six-month sentence in the county jail and placed him on two years unsupervised probation. This appeal followed.
In his first point on appeal, Mr. Turner claims that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal because insufficient evidence was presented to support the conviction for peace disturbance. In a court-tried case, the sufficiency of the evidence is determined by the same standard as in a jury-tried case. State v. Sladek, 835 S.W.2d 308, 310 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021, 119 S.Ct. 551, 142 L.Ed.2d 458 (1998). Review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is limited to determining whether sufficient evidence was presented from which a reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 52 (Mo. banc 1998). The evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and any contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded. Id. Great deference is given to the trier of fact. Id.
A person commits the crime of peace disturbance if he unreasonably or knowingly disturbs or alarms another person or persons by threatening to commit a felonious act against any person under circumstances which are likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that such threat may be carried out. Section 574.010.1(1)(c), RSMo 2000. Mr. Turner first contends that insufficient evidence was presented to establish that the alleged threat to kill Margaret was made under circumstances likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that such threat might be carried out. Additionally, he argues that insufficient evidence was presented that he knew that his comment would disturb Margaret. The mental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sexton
...969 S.W.2d 223, 224-25[3] (Mo.banc 1998). The proper time to raise such issues must be done on motion before trial. State v. Turner, 48 S.W.3d 693, 696-97 (Mo.App. 2001); Rule 24.04. If Defendant wanted to challenge the constitutionality of this statute, he must have done so before pleading......
-
State v. Sexton
...969 S.W.2d 223, 224-25[3] (Mo.banc 1998). The proper time to raise such issues must be done on motion before trial. State v. Turner, 48 S.W.3d 693, 696-97 (Mo.App.2001); Rule 24.04. If Defendant wanted to challenge the constitutionality of this statute, he must have done so before pleading ......
-
State v. Cerna
...bar Defendant's claim, as motions for acquittal typically come after the conclusion of a trial. See , e.g. , State v. Turner , 48 S.W.3d 693, 696 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) ; State v. Danforth , 654 S.W.2d 912, 917–18 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983) ; State v. Sullivan , 935 S.W.2d 747 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996).......
-
State v. Rader
...issue were preserved, we would be required to transfer this case to our Supreme Court. Roberson, 248 S.W.3d at 35; State v. Turner, 48 S.W.3d 693, 696–97 (Mo.App.2001). Because Defendant is raising this constitutional issue for the first time on appeal, however, we need not address it. Robe......