State v. Caldwell
352 S.W.3d 378
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Caldwell was charged with trespass in the first degree for knowingly remaining unlawfully on real property at 160 N.W. 251, Warrensburg, Missouri, possessed by the University, after notice, and with resisting arrest by refusing to exit her vehicle at an officer’s request.
- Incident occurred May 13, 2008 at the Central Missouri Skyhaven/Max B. Swisher Airport; airport hours were 7:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m.; after 9:00 p.m. only authorized vehicles could be on the premises.
- Officer Schmidt approached Caldwell around 7:34 p.m., Caldwell wrote on a planner 'I'm studying' and argued that the premises were not university property; Schmidt asserted it was University property.
- After the airport closed, Schmidt returned at 10:16 p.m.; Caldwell refused to communicate and to exit her vehicle despite approximately forty proddings; police used a lockout tool to unlock her car and take her into custody.
- There was no evidence of Caldwell’s violence, threats, flight, or use of force after the door was unlocked; the record contains no details of events surrounding custodial arrest.
- Caldwell moved for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied; the jury found Caldwell guilty of trespass and resisting arrest; the trial court sentenced her to concurrent 30-day terms.
- On appeal, Caldwell challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for both offenses; the court addressed whether the address 160 N.W. 251 properly identified the charged property and whether resisting arrest was proven by force or fleeing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trespass: sufficiency of evidence tying address to University property | Caldwell argues 160 N.W. 251 was not proven as Airport/University property. | Caldwell contends the State failed to identify the location and ownership of the alleged property. | Granted; insufficient evidence linking the address to the Airport/University property. |
| Resisting arrest: sufficiency of evidence of force or fleeing | Caldwell argues she did not use or threaten violence/physical force or flee in resisting arrest. | Caldwell argues the act of staying in the car and not exiting is enough to show resistance. | Granted; mere refusal to exit a locked vehicle is not sufficient to prove resisting arrest. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Belton, 108 S.W.3d 171 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003) (physical force may be nonviolent resistance; supports evaluating 'resisting arrest')
- State v. Miller, 172 S.W.3d 838 (Mo.App. S.D. 2005) (nonviolent resistance can constitute physical force for resisting arrest)
- State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485 (Mo. banc 2000) (counsels' arguments are not evidence; standard for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency)
- Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Monsees, 335 S.W.3d 105 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011) (essence of trespass is violation of possession; claimant must have legal right to possession)
- State v. Black, 50 S.W.3d 778 (Mo. banc 2001) (variance between charge and proof; not reversible unless material and prejudicial)
- State v. Sallee, 436 S.W.2d 246 (Mo. 1969) (address/identification in charging documents; sufficiency without explicit address in some contexts)
- State v. Bussard, 494 S.W.2d 401 (Mo. App. 1973) (identification issues in charging information; proof of location matters)