State of Missouri v. James W. Lewis
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 445
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On April 6, 2014, James Lewis approached Lee Ann Wise in a grocery parking lot, bumped her, grabbed her purse and fled; the purse was later recovered nearby.
- Officer Houston, alerted by dispatch, pursued Lewis; Lewis fled and resisted arrest until detained by a cyclist and then Houston.
- Wise and two eyewitnesses described the taking as a swift yank/slide off her arm with a brief or "slight" struggle; no serious injury was reported.
- At trial defense argued Lewis fled because of outstanding warrants (suggesting flight unrelated to robbery); the prosecutor rebutted in closing by stating the warrants were traffic-related (a fact not in evidence).
- Jury convicted Lewis of second-degree robbery and resisting arrest; trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to consecutive terms (30 and 7 years). The written judgment omitted the persistent-offender finding; the State sought nunc pro tunc correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of "physical force" for 2nd-degree robbery | State: Victim and eyewitness testimony of bump plus yank/slide show force used to overcome resistance | Lewis: Single yank and de minimis bump were insufficient; akin to snatch cases (stealing, not robbery) | Affirmed: Viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, bump plus yank/slight struggle sufficient for jury to find forcible taking |
| Prosecutor's rebuttal comment about warrants (not in evidence) | State: Rebuttal responded to defense theory that flight was due to warrants; prosecutor may respond to defense opening | Lewis: Comment introduced prejudicial, non‑evidentiary matter warranting mistrial or curative instruction | Affirmed: No plain error; defense failed to object and comment did not have decisive effect given other identification evidence |
| Clerical omission in written judgment (persistent-offender finding) | State: Trial court actually found prior and persistent offender status and should correct written judgment nunc pro tunc | Lewis: (no substantive dispute) | Remanded: Court instructed trial court to correct the written judgment nunc pro tunc to reflect prior and persistent offender finding |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Adams, 406 S.W.2d 608 (Mo. 1966) (snatching from hand/shoulder without struggle is stealing, not robbery)
- State v. Tivis, 884 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) (no contact/struggle supports insufficiency for robbery)
- State v. Henderson, 310 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (de minimis contact incidental to a snatch insufficient for force element)
- State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. 2010) (scope and limits of closing argument; plain‑error principles)
- State v. Sanchez, 186 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. 2006) (prosecutor may respond to defense issues in argument)
- State v. Carroll, 207 S.W.3d 140 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (authorizes nunc pro tunc correction of judgments to reflect trial court findings)