State of Missouri v. Brian Keith McBenge
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1158
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim (elderly woman) was beaten to death in her home between Nov. 2–4, 1984; her house was ransacked and entry was made through a broken-in front door window.
- DNA testing in 2011 linked a single-source profile on a discarded single-slice cheese wrapper to McBenge (defendant) and a mixed male profile on a stocking to his brother Cecil; probabilities reported by the lab were high (1 in 741,000 and 1 in 6.17 million respectively).
- Defendant had been seen at Victim’s house years earlier while dating Victim’s granddaughter and knew Victim kept cash in a Calumet can in the lower kitchen cabinets; a 1980 burglary of Victim’s home had a latent print later identified as Defendant’s (identified in 1986).
- Defendant was tried (Aug. 11–16, 2014) on first-degree murder (and alternate second-degree felony-murder instruction based on first-degree burglary) under accomplice liability; the jury convicted him of first-degree murder and he was sentenced to life without parole.
- On appeal the court reversed the first-degree murder conviction (insufficient evidence defendant personally deliberated) and remanded for a new trial on second-degree felony murder; the court also addressed evidentiary rulings that may recur on retrial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | McBenge's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre‑indictment delay (motion to dismiss) | Delay stemmed from late DNA testing but not from State tactical delay; charges were timely once evidence linked defendant. | Delay prejudiced defense because key items were destroyed before indictment and testing took ~27 years. | Denied — defendant conceded he could not prove State intended delay to gain tactical advantage; Griffin test requires both prejudice and intent. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder (accomplice liability) | DNA plus circumstantial evidence (presence at house, motive re: Calumet can, ransacking, brutal beating) permitted inference defendant aided and deliberated. | Evidence did not show defendant personally committed the killing or personally deliberated; DNA items were not tied to the killing itself. | Reversed — insufficient evidence that defendant personally deliberated; manner of killing (repeated blows) cannot prove accomplice’s premeditation absent evidence he participated or agreed to kill (O’Brien and progeny). Remanded for new trial on second‑degree felony murder. |
| Admission of evidence about the 1980 burglary (uncharged crime) | Relevant to motive and identity—similarities (kitchen cabinets disturbed, flashlight moved, food consumed) supported admission. | Highly prejudicial prior‑bad‑act evidence; differences and temporal gap undercut similarity; admission improperly suggested propensity. | Error — 1980 burglary evidence did not meet exceptions (motive and identity) after balancing probative value against prejudice; not admissible as uncharged‑crime evidence. |
| Chain of custody for DNA items (cheese wrapper & stocking) | Testimony regarding seizure, processing, evidence‑room procedures, evidence receipts, and lab testimony provided reasonable assurance items were same and condition did not affect DNA results. | Gaps in chain (missing testimony from seizing detective; delay to evidence room; powder on wrapper at testing) destroyed reasonable assurance. | No abuse of discretion — State established sufficient chain of custody and condition for both exhibits; gaps and condition changes were cross‑examination points for weight, not grounds for exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. O'Brien, 857 S.W.2d 212 (Mo. 1993) (accomplice liability for first‑degree murder requires proof defendant personally deliberated; manner of killing cannot prove accomplice premeditation absent participation or agreement to kill)
- State v. Griffin, 848 S.W.2d 464 (Mo. 1993) (pre‑indictment‑delay test requires both prejudice and State intent to gain tactical advantage)
- State v. Rousan, 961 S.W.2d 831 (Mo. 1998) (identifies circumstances that may support inference of accomplice deliberation: statements/conduct indicating intent to kill, knowledge of deadly weapon, or participation/continuation after it becomes apparent a killing will occur)
- State v. Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. 2004) (deliberation may be inferred from repeated blows or multiple wounds where defendant personally committed the murder)
- State v. Davis, 211 S.W.3d 86 (Mo. 2006) (other‑crime evidence must be subjected to rigid scrutiny; probative value must outweigh prejudicial effect)