State of Missouri v. Justin Floyd Eugene Jones
479 S.W.3d 100
Mo.2016Background
- On Feb. 10, 2010, Jones entered C.H.’s attached garage late at night; C.H. and her son M.H. were at home. Jones was holding a gun; C.H. retreated and activated an alarm.
- M.H. struggled with Jones after Jones demanded drugs/money; during the struggle M.H. briefly grabbed Jones’ gun, Jones bit M.H., regained the gun, then fled without firing.
- Officer Avery, responding to dispatch, saw Jones running nearby, identified himself, told Jones to stop, chased and caught him; Jones was handcuffed and arrested. A K-9 trackback led from the arrest site to C.H.’s back door; M.H. identified Jones in a showup.
- Indictment: first-degree burglary (inhabitable structure with nonparticipants present) with associated armed criminal action; attempted first-degree robbery with associated armed criminal action; third-degree assault; resisting arrest (alleged by fleeing).
- At close of the State’s case Jones moved for acquittal on (1) the armed criminal action tied to burglary (arguing no evidence he "used" the gun to gain entry or intimidate for entry) and (2) resisting arrest (arguing he did not know an arrest was being attempted). Motion denied; jury convicted on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for armed criminal action (burglary) | State: armed criminal action may be proven if the felony was committed by, with, or through the use, aid, or assistance of a weapon; gun in Jones’s hands as he crossed threshold furnished aid/assistance. | Jones: no proof he “used” the gun to effect entry or to intimidate into entry; garage door opened by sensor so gun was not instrument of entry. | Affirmed: statutory language ("by, with, or through" and "use, assistance, aid") is broad; jury could infer the gun aided/assisted entry (bolstered confidence/readily accessible), so evidence sufficient. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest (fleeing) | State: officer identified himself, commanded Jones to stop, chased; Jones fled after committing felonies and ran directly into officer’s view — a reasonable person should know an arrest was being attempted. | Jones: officer never said the words “you are under arrest”; could have thought officer only sought a temporary stop/investigation. | Affirmed: explicit words not required; identification, command to stop and pursuit plus Jones’s flight from the scene of felonies supported that he knew or reasonably should have known an arrest was being attempted. |
| Motion for continuance denial | State: defendant failed to show due diligence or materiality as required by Rule 24.10; proposed witness description speculative and cell-phone forensic belated without diligence. | Jones: needed time to locate alibi/alternative-suspect witness and to forensically examine phone call logs; counsel recent appointment and scheduling issues. | Affirmed: motion lacked Rule 24.10 specifics (name, materiality, due diligence); proposed testimony was speculative and phone testing could have been pursued earlier; no abuse of discretion or shown prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reynolds, 819 S.W.2d 322 (Mo. 1991) (intention to use a weapon, without actual use, is insufficient in some contexts)
- State v. Carpenter, 109 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (armed criminal action requires weapon used to gain entry or to threaten to gain entry when burglary is charged as entry)
- State v. Hopkins, 140 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (post-entry use of a weapon not necessarily proof weapon aided entry; reversal of armed criminal action where weapon use was after completed entry)
- State v. Pigques, 310 S.W.2d 942 (Mo. 1958) (burglary completed upon slightest insertion of body across threshold)
- State v. Pierce, 433 S.W.3d 424 (Mo. 2014) (elements of resisting arrest and standards for proving purpose to prevent arrest)
- State v. Chamberlin, 872 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) (officer need not say "you are under arrest" where circumstances indicate arrest attempt)
- State v. Obasogie, 457 S.W.3d 793 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014) (displaying a gun during entry can create an implicit threat supporting armed criminal action)