State of Missouri v. Danielle Johnson
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 232
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Johnson was convicted of first-degree robbery under accomplice liability for aiding a gunman who displayed a weapon.
- The trial court sentenced Johnson as a persistent offender to 25 years’ imprisonment.
- Key facts show Monsignor McCarthy was robbed of cash, Schnucks gift cards, and Metro passes, with Johnson’s car involved and an unidentified gunman.
- Love, the priest’s assistant, witnessed the robbery and later identified Johnson’s Dodge Neon as belonging to Johnson.
- Police recovered Johnson’s car and charged him with first-degree robbery and armed criminal action; Johnson admitted involvement and later stated he did not rob the priest.
- On appeal, Johnson argues the evidence failed to show he intended to aid a robbery with a deadly weapon or knew the gunman possessed a deadly weapon; the standard of review requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence of accomplice intent for first-degree robbery | Johnson argues no evidence shows he intended to promote a robbery with a deadly weapon | Johnson contends lack of knowledge of the gunman’s deadly weapon defeats accomplice liability | Sufficient evidence supports conviction; accomplice liability does not require knowledge of a weapon |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Forister, 823 S.W.2d 504 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (accomplice liability requires intent to promote the offense; any participation suffices)
- State v. Hicks, 203 S.W.3d 241 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (only need to show intent to aid the principal to commit the offense; may anticipate weapon use)
- State v. White, 622 S.W.2d 939 (Mo. banc 1981) ( Sections 562.051/562.041: no extra elements of intent; accessory liability applies to all who act in concert)
- State v. Liles, 237 S.W.3d 636 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (upholds accomplice conviction when defendant could reasonably anticipate conduct of others)
- State v. Coons, 743 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988) (accomplice liability upheld even without knowledge of the exact crime; participation suffices)
- State v. Jones, 296 S.W.3d 506 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (proof that defendant knew principal robbed and acted as getaway driver supports accomplice liability)
- State v. Whittemore, 276 S.W.3d 404 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (courts treat accomplice liability as broad when acting in concert)