State of Missouri v. Barbara A. Barker, 442 S.W.3d 165

Barbara Barker was convicted of promoting possession of child pornography in the second degree under a theory of accomplice liability.
The State presented multiple witnesses alleging Barbara’s knowledge and conduct related to James Barker’s viewing of child pornography.
Evidence included Barbara’s statements to police, Haus’s testimony about James’s computer usage, and Sheriff Anderson’s observations during search.
The trial court allowed the State’s jury instruction requiring Barbara to have acted with the purpose of promoting the offense.
Barbara did not present evidence after her initial motion to dismiss was denied, and the court denied the acquittal motion at close of State’s case.
On appeal, the court reversed and discharged Barbara, finding insufficient evidence that Barbara acted with the purpose to promote the offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of affirmative participation?	Barker	Barker	Yes or no not applicable here; (court resolves below) but summary: insufficient evidence to prove purpose to promote

State v. McQuary, 173 S.W.3d 663 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in accomplice liability cases)
State v. Botts, 151 S.W.3d 372 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (review of evidentiary sufficiency and reasonable inferences)
State v. May, 71 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (definition of accomplice and requisite mens rea)
State v. Holmquest, 243 S.W.3d 444 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (accomplice mens rea must be purpose to promote offense)
State v. Barnum, 14 S.W.3d 587 (Mo. banc 2000) (accomplice liability framework and affirmative participation concept)
State v. Williams, 409 S.W.3d 460 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (circumstances supporting inference of accomplice participation)
State v. Case, 140 S.W.3d 80 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (distinguishing between knowledge and purposeful participation)
Douglas v. State, 410 S.W.3d 290 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (plea basis must show knowledge of crime purpose)
State v. Langdon, 110 S.W.3d 807 (Mo. banc 2003) (limits on using suspicion to sustain conviction)
State v. Power, 281 S.W.3d 843 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (reasonable inferences must be logical and grounded in facts)
State v. Smith, 108 S.W.3d 714 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (circumstantial evidence and affirmative participation)
State v. Hibbert, 14 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000) (consciousness of guilt from false statements)
State v. Nunley, 992 S.W.2d 892 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) (preservation of sufficiency challenge in some contexts)