State v. Bernhardt
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 249
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Bernhardt was Dr. Packman’s patient in 2001–2002; family connections included Packman’s doctor relationship with Bernhardt’s cousin (and his father Roger Bernhardt).
- Defendant voiced intent to sue for malpractice and sought to “finish [Packman] off,” prompting disclosure to Packman’s office but no further contact for years.
- In 2009, at 3 a.m., Bernhardt arrived at Packman’s residence with a loaded handgun in an Infiniti; he drove by multiple times, illuminated the scene, and briefly displayed the gun.
- David Packman, the physician’s son, observed the car’s movements, lighting, and possible loading of a weapon; security calls and police pursuit followed.
- Police located a loaded handgun in Bernhardt’s trunk; he was arrested for trespassing; the State charged aggravated stalking and armed criminal action.
- The jury convicted Bernhardt of aggravated stalking and armed criminal action; sentences were five years (stalking) and four years (armed action) to run concurrently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 565.225 is unconstitutionally vague | Statutory terms have ordinary meaning; ‘communicate’ is definite enough. | Vagueness in lacking definition for ‘communicate’ fails to warn of proscribed conduct. | Constitutionality sustained; statute not void for vagueness. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence that Bernhardt communicated a credible threat | Repeated nocturnal appearances with a gun and illumination constituted a credible threat. | Actions did not directly communicate a threat to Packman; lack of direct targeting. | Sufficient evidence of communication under the statute; verdict supported. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain armed criminal action | Loading and displaying the gun in front of the residence showed use of a deadly weapon. | Possession alone does not satisfy the predicate act. | Conviction affirmed; gun threat established the predicate for armed criminal action. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Porter, 241 S.W.3d 385 (Mo. App. 2007) (defines ordinary meaning for statutory terms; aids vagueness review)
- State v. Brown, 660 S.W.2d 694 (Mo. 1983) (terms of common usage satisfy definiteness)
- Peterson, 253 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. 2008) (concept of ordinary meaning in vagueness analysis)
- Ahern v. P & H, LLC, 254 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. App. 2008) (jurisdiction and colorable challenge to constitutional claims)