Criminal
Gunshot through the forearm was a serious physical injury
The elements of first-degree assault included serious physical injury, and that a physical injury was serious if it “creates a substantial risk of death.” A substantial risk meant “less than a probability or even a likelihood” and equal to “a legitimate concern [.]” A legitimate concern that death would result arose when defendant shot victim “through-and-through” the forearm, as shown by evidence about dropping blood pressure and infection. Swift medical attention did not negate that concern. Statutes provide that the minimum sentence for armed criminal action with a weapon lawfully possessed is three years imprisonment, not five years as the parties and circuit court believed, so plain error occurred when the circuit court imposed sentence on a mistaken belief. The Court of Appeals reversed that conviction and remanded for re-sentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Keith L. Johnson, Jr., Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED111484
First-degree assault conviction affirmed
On a charge of assault in the first degree by attempts to cause serious physical injury, the elements include a substantial step toward executing an intent to cause serious physical harm. Defendant argued that his intent was to protect a third person from victim. Victim sustained injuries to the head and face, including broken facial bones and gashes requiring 20 stitches, which supports an inference that defendant intended to harm victim and not merely to protect a third party. Conviction affirmed.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Alexander Harris, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED110963
Intent shown
For the offense of second-degree murder, the elements included conduct that caused serious physical injury “knowingly [,]” meaning awareness that such a result was practically certain. “A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts, and ‘[t]he natural consequence of firing a handgun toward the victim is, at the very least, great bodily harm.’” Undisputed evidence showed that defendant pointed a loaded pistol at victim’s head and pulled the trigger. Evidence that defendant followed victim to the crime scene showed intent. Evidence that defendant fled afterward without rendering aid also show consciousness of guilt. Defendant’s testimony, that pulling the trigger was an accident, is contrary to the verdict so the Court of Appeals ignored it. No plain error occurred when the circuit court failed to sua sponte submit an instruction on involuntary manslaughter that defendant had not requested.
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Prinshun McClain, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED111322
