State of Missouri v. Blaec James Lammers
2016 Mo. LEXIS 38
| Mo. | 2016Background
- Defendant (age 20) with history of serious mental illness legally purchased two assault rifles and ammunition from Walmart and, despite no prior firearms experience, practiced shooting with a friend.
- Defendant concealed the purchases from his parents; his mother found a receipt, alerted police, and requested a welfare check.
- Officers obtained Defendant’s voluntary agreement to go to the station; a detective read Miranda warnings, conducted a recorded interview, during which Defendant admitted he had envisioned and planned a mass shooting at the local Walmart but said he changed his mind after target practice.
- Defendant was arrested at the end of the interview and charged with attempted first-degree assault, armed criminal action, and terroristic threat (acquitted on the latter).
- Trial court admitted the recorded interview over a suppression motion, found Defendant competent, convicted him of attempted first-degree assault and armed criminal action, and sentenced him to concurrent 15-year terms.
- On appeal, Defendant challenged (1) suppression ruling under Fourth and Fifth Amendments and (2) sufficiency of evidence for attempt (intent and substantial step).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment seizure / admissibility | Police encounter was consensual; no seizure so no Fourth Amendment violation | Interview was a de facto custody requiring suppression because it was coercive and unsupported by probable cause | Held: encounter was consensual, Defendant not seized or under arrest; no Fourth Amendment violation; statements admissible |
| Fifth Amendment / Miranda warnings | Miranda not required because interrogation was noncustodial; warnings given and understood | Warnings were defective or misunderstood; custodial interrogation occurred so statements should be suppressed | Held: interview was noncustodial; Miranda not triggered; even if imperfect, no Fifth Amendment violation |
| Sufficiency — intent (purpose to commit first-degree assault) | Defendant’s statements describing planning a Walmart mass shooting plus prior planning and deception about purpose of purchases show purpose to kill or cause serious injury | Defendant only had thoughts; intent only arose after purchase; concealment and statements insufficient | Held: reasonable fact-finder could conclude Defendant had the requisite purpose based on admissions and circumstantial evidence |
| Sufficiency — substantial step toward offense | Purchasing military-style rifles, ammunition, and target practice strongly corroborate firmness of purpose under §564.011 | Purchasing lawful guns and later relinquishing them do not qualify as substantial step; Ess and similar precedent require closer conduct | Held: purchase and practice constitute substantial steps; Verweire (and aspects requiring trigger/police intervention) rejected; Ess distinguished; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual police encounter standard; no seizure if a reasonable person feels free to decline)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
- State v. Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. banc 2004) (voluntary accompaniment to station is noncustodial when person free to leave)
- State ex rel. Verweire v. Moore, 211 S.W.3d 89 (Mo. banc 2006) (prior approach to attempt requiring more direct action criticized and narrowed by this opinion)
- State v. Ess, 453 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. banc 2015) (reversed attempted child-molestation conviction for insufficient substantial-step evidence; distinguished here)