State v. Graham
553 S.W.3d 411
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Between Aug 26 and Nov 1, 2014, Graham sent multiple text messages to A.L. (and later to her son R.T.) and placed an anonymous call to the sheriff’s office threatening violence against A.L.’s business at 1205 Rangeline. Jury found Graham’s texts and call frightening and threatening.
- A.L. had a full order of protection dated Aug 6, 2014; the State alleged Graham had actual notice of it and violated it by contacting A.L. on Aug 26, 2014.
- On Nov 1, 2014, Graham texted R.T. statements including “about to set this shit in flames” and “Bloodbath time,” and then called Boone County dispatch claiming he had ten guns and a 10‑minute ETA to kill the business owner.
- Police responded, A.L. feared for her children’s safety, and R.T. corroborated receiving the threatening texts and calls; Graham was identified by voice on calls and linked to phone numbers used.
- The State charged Graham with two counts of aggravated stalking: Count I (violation of an order of protection as part of a course of conduct) and Count II (making a credible threat as part of a course of conduct). Jury convicted on both counts; sentences were suspended and Graham placed on probation. Graham appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Graham had actual knowledge of the full order of protection when he texted A.L. on Aug 26, 2014 | State: Graham’s own statements and conduct (including telling Deputy Vessar he attended court on the order and phrasing his texts as non‑"contact") supported inference he knew of the order and its prohibitions | Graham: No proof he received legal or actual notice before texting; conversation with Deputy Vessar insufficient and timing unclear | The court held evidence was sufficient to infer actual knowledge (conviction affirmed) |
| Whether texts on Aug 26, 2014 constituted a "course of conduct" (two or more acts) | State: Multiple text exchanges separated by nearly five hours show distinct acts evidencing continuity of purpose | Graham: Multiple messages were one continuous conversation and thus not separate acts (citing Sigmon) | The court held the five‑hour gap allowed reflection and thus supported a course of conduct (conviction affirmed) |
| Whether Graham’s Nov 1 texts to R.T. and call to dispatch were intended to harass A.L. (specific intent) | State: Threats sent to R.T., knowledge of A.L.’s residence and children, and subsequent actions showed purpose to harass A.L. | Graham: If intent to harass A.L. existed, he would have directly texted A.L. or stated intent to harm her | The court held a rational juror could infer specific intent to harass A.L. via intermediary; delivery through R.T. supported harassment element (conviction affirmed) |
| Whether messages and call on Nov 1 constituted a credible threat | State: Explicit violent language, claimed weapons, ETA to the business, and context rendered the threat credible | Graham: (Not directly contested on appeal) | Court accepted that the messages and call constituted a credible threat under the statute (jury verdict sustained) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gentry, 936 S.W.2d 790 (Mo. banc 1996) (actual notice can satisfy due process even if not legal service; notice sufficient when it arrives prior to forbidden acts)
- State v. Sigmon, 517 S.W.3d 653 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (multiple utterances during a single continuous encounter may not constitute separate acts for "course of conduct")
- State v. Bernhardt, 338 S.W.3d 830 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (threats may be delivered via intermediary)
- State v. Hardin, 429 S.W.3d 417 (Mo. banc 2014) (definition and elements of aggravated stalking under section 565.225)
- State v. Steidley, 533 S.W.3d 762 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (standards for sufficiency of evidence review in criminal cases)