State v. Denzmore
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 471
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Denzmore and co-defendant Monigan were charged jointly with robbery, armed criminal action, and kidnapping arising from the Hemker/Beeks incident on Jan. 15, 2011; Denzmore was 17 at the time.
- Monigan was separately charged for additional offenses related to a Jan. 16, 2011 incident involving the Quigleys but those offenses were not charged against Denzmore.
- On Jan. 21, 2011, a police pursuit led to a crash when Denzmore, driving Hemker’s stolen Altima, struck a parked car and a restaurant, then fled on foot.
- Lineups showed Hemker and Beeks identifying Denzmore as the gunman; Quigleys identified Monigan; neither Quigley identified Denzmore.
- The trial court denied a motion to sever, and after a five-day trial the jury found both defendants guilty on all counts; Denzmore was sentenced to a total of 44 years.
- The judgment was affirmed on appeal challenging severance, sufficiency of the leaving-the-scene conviction, and the length of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance required when joint trial prejudices a defendant | State: severance not required; evidence against Monigan was limited to his offenses | Denzmore: joint trial prejudices him by admissible evidence against Monigan | Severance not required; no prejudicial spillover shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence for leaving the scene of an accident | State: admissions/evidence support $1,000+ damage element | Denzmore: proof of damage value lacking; insufficient without direct evidence | Evidence, including admissions, suffices to prove the element; count not void |
| Cruel and unusual punishment given juvenile non-homicide offenses | Miller/Graham require youth consideration and proportionality; sentence within statutory range | No plain error; sentence within range and not a de facto life sentence; court properly considered youth and offense severity |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. banc 1998) (guides severance analysis and prejudice standard in joint trials)
- State v. Kidd, 990 S.W.2d 175 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (burden on defendant to show prejudice from joint trial with co-defendant)
- State v. Ward, 782 S.W.2d 725 (Mo.App. E.D.1989) (evidence admissible against one defendant does not mandate severance if severance would be cure by jury instructions)