State v. Agee
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1331
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Agee and Roy Bradshaw abduct Bub, Scott, and Leeoma after unlawful entry into Bub's home; Dianne Ledgerwood was killed during the incident.
- Appellant and Roy bound Bub, held others at gunpoint, and transported victims to the woods, threatening violence and delaying authorities.
- Dianne was killed when Roy shot her during the ongoing burglary; the group later attempted to burn Bub's vehicle containing Dianne's body.
- Appellant testified she was fearful of Roy due to prior abuse and that she wanted to be incarcerated for safety, admitting involvement only to seek protection.
- Appellant was convicted on eighteen counts, including murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, robbery, felonious restraint, kidnapping, and armed criminal action, with sentences running as described; the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
- The appellate court analyzed sufficiency of evidence and instructional issues, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of kidnapping evidence for flight | Agee argues no flight evidence to justify kidnapping counts. | State contends flight is supported by taking victims to woods to avoid capture. | Sufficient evidence supports kidnapping for flight. |
| Burglary to support felony murder | Agee claims burglary completed before Dianne's murder, so cannot support felony murder. | State shows burglary continued through the murder; ongoing threat kept burglary alive. | Burglary in the first degree supported felony murder because entry and ongoing unlawful stay persisted during the killing. |
| Armed criminal action via accomplice liability | Agee argues lack of intent for underlying homicide and no weapon by her. | Accomplice liability applies; she aided/encouraged burglary and participated in threats with Roy. | Supported by accomplice liability; sufficient evidence to convict of armed criminal action. |
| Plain-error review of unpreserved points | Agee seeks plain-error review for points III and VI. | Arguments not properly preserved; standard for plain error is high. | Points III and VI not reviewable for plain error; no manifest injustice shown. |
| Cross-examination misconduct claim | Agee claims prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination; multifarious point should be considered. | Court should not review multifarious claims; no reversible error shown. | Point VI denied as multifarious; no plain or preserved error identified. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 24 S.W.3d 101 (Mo. App. 2000) (felony murder does not require intent to kill; underlying felony is the key to felonious intent)
- State v. Gheen, 41 S.W.3d 598 (Mo. App. 2001) (underlying felony element required for felony murder; it is a means of proving intent to kill)
- State v. Meuir, 138 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. App. 2004) (accomplice liability—presence at scene and affirmative participation can support liability)