Criminal
One vehicle driven through two counties, two prosecutions, double jeopardy
Constitutional provisions governing double jeopardy barred successive prosecutions for a single offense. A statute defined a single offense to include “a continuing course of conduct [that was] uninterrupted[.]” Another statute provided that one offense was included in another when they shared the same facts. The state alleged that defendant operated victim’s vehicle without victim’s consent through two counties, charged defendant with first degree tampering in one county, prevailed on that charge, and then charged defendant with first degree tampering in the other county. Under the Same Elements Test, the second prosecution constituted double jeopardy because the location of the events was not an element of first-degree tampering, and a separate excursion in the same vehicle is not a separate offense, and there was no separate offense without evidence of a separate mens rea. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the second conviction.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Brian Keith Heathcock, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED111834
No mental state required for special victim status
Assault in the second degree was subject to enhanced classification when the victim was a special victim as defined by statute. On appeal from a criminal conviction, appellate courts always reviewed a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, even when not preserved. Evidence was sufficient when a reasonable finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. The elements of assault in the second degree against a special victim did not include any mental state as to special victim status. All elements of second -degree assault against a special victim had support in the record so the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. RYAN ROBERT HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD37981
