State v. Harrell
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 70
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Harrell was convicted of kidnapping, burglary, two counts of domestic assault, endangering welfare of a child, and property damage; only kidnapping and endangering welfare of a child are at issue.
- C.M. and M.M. were present during the 21 October 2009 assault at Harrell's mother’s house; Harrell punched C.M., pulled her by the hair, and forced her and M.M. to leave for his truck.
- C.M. testified Harrell threatened to hit her if she attempted to leave; Harrell’s prior violence against C.M. was admitted.
- Harrell forced C.M. and M.M. into his truck, drove home, and returned the next morning when M.M. called police.
- The trial court sentenced Harrell as a persistent felony offender to a total of 20 years; Harrell appeals raising sufficiency challenges.
- The Missouri Supreme Court standard of review for sufficiency is deferential to the fact-finder and accepts favorable State evidence as true.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insufficiency of evidence to prove kidnapping | State argues evidence showed confinement/force and coercion. | Harrell contends confinement was not substantial or without consent. | No; evidence supported confinement and coercion beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Insufficiency of evidence to prove endangering welfare of a child (second degree) | State contends conduct placed M.M. in substantial risk and caused injury. | Harrell argues lack of criminal negligence or substantial risk. | No; conduct created substantial risk to M.M.’s health and body. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nash, 839 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard of review for sufficiency; great deference to trier of fact)
- State v. Morrow, 941 S.W.2d 19 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (confinement/movement analysis in kidnapping cases)
- State v. Brock, 113 S.W.3d 227 (Mo.App. E.D.2003) (criminal negligence and substantial risk definitions)