592 S.W.3d 354
Mo.2019Background
- On May 19, 2013 Charles Shaw became aggressive outside a church, assaulted a parishioner who was holding his two-year-old child, and made threats including to kidnap the child.
- Trooper Mark Mason responded, encountered Shaw, was charged by Shaw, and was punched; Mason used pepper spray, and with parishioners subdued and handcuffed Shaw. Shaw remained combative and threatened people at the scene.
- Shaw was charged with first-degree assault, felony attempted child kidnapping, and felony resisting arrest; the attempted-kidnapping count was dismissed at the close of the State’s case; bench trial resulted in convictions for first-degree assault and felony resisting arrest.
- At trial Trooper Mason testified he arrested Shaw “for an attempted assault on me.” Shaw moved for judgment of acquittal on resisting arrest; the motion was overruled and Shaw appealed only the felony resisting arrest conviction.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a felony resisting arrest conviction under § 575.150.5(1), focusing on (1) whether the State proved Shaw resisted an arrest "for" an offense and (2) whether that offense constitutes a felony as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Shaw) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for felony resisting arrest under § 575.150.5(1). | Trooper Mason’s testimony that he arrested Shaw "for an attempted assault on me" established Shaw resisted an arrest "because of" an offense; the factfinder may find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | State failed to prove the arresting officer subjectively contemplated arresting Shaw for a felony, so the enhancement to felony resisting arrest was unsupported. | Affirmed. The State presented sufficient evidence that Shaw resisted an arrest "because of" an offense; the court determines as a matter of law whether that offense is a felony. Subjective intent of the officer is not required. |
| Proper statutory meaning of § 575.150.5(1): what does "for a felony" require? | "Felony" means an offense that legally constitutes a felony; "for" means "because of" or "on account of," requiring a nexus between the offense and the arrest; the factfinder need only find an arrest was made for an offense and the court decides if that offense is a felony. | Argued the statute requires proof that the arresting officer was subjectively making a felony arrest. | Held that "for" means "because of/on account of" and "felony" is a legal classification; the statute does not demand proof of the officer’s subjective state of mind. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce, 433 S.W.3d 424 (Mo. banc 2014) (cited for elements of resisting arrest statute)
- Clark, 490 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. banc 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty must be proved to factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Merritt, 805 S.W.2d 337 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (older court-of-appeals decision holding officer must have contemplated a felony arrest; overruled to that extent)
- Jordan, 181 S.W.3d 588 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (court of appeals reversed resisting-arrest conviction for lack of proof officer contemplated felony arrest; overruled to that extent)
- Bell, 30 S.W.3d 206 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (court of appeals required proof of which offense prompted arrest; court here rejects that reading)
- Hopson, 168 S.W.3d 557 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (illustrates that officer testimony about basis for arrest is relevant but not required)