State v. Holmes
2013 Mo. LEXIS 32
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Holmes appeals his misdemeanor criminal nonsupport conviction for March–May 2011 actions.
- Statute 568.040.1 made lack of good cause an element; 568.040.3 allowed a good-cause defense by preponderance.
- State showed Holmes owned rental property, worked, and provided no monetary or in-kind support.
- Holmes offered to divide expenses but paid nothing; he stated intent to fight the order.
- Trial conceded the State must prove lack of good cause beyond a reasonable doubt; court sentenced Holmes to probation.
- 2012 amendment removed lack of good cause as an element, but Holmes’s offense occurred under the 2011 version and the appeal concerns that version
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 568.040.1 places burden on State or defendant | Holmes argues burden shifts to defendant | State contends statute ambiguous but supports burden on State | State burden governs; lack of good cause is an element for 2011 |
| Relation of Hicks v. Feiock to this case | Hicks requires lack of intent not to be shifted | Hicks not controlling; this is nonsupport, not contempt | Hicks not controlling; statute interpretation prevails |
| Sufficiency of evidence of lack of good cause | Holmes lacked adequate evidence of his ability or lack of good cause | State showed no good cause; Holmes would fight order | Evidence sufficient to support finding of lack of good cause |
| Impact of 2012 amendment on elements | Amendment removes lack of good cause as element | Not applicable to 2011 conduct; statute interpreted to still require lack of good cause | 2011 interpretation remains valid for Holmes’s conduct; conviction affirmed |
| Need for monetary-amount proof of ability to pay | Without bank/tax/pay stubs, cannot show ability to pay | State need only prove lack of good cause; not actual funds amount | State need not prove full payment ability; lack of good cause sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624 (1988) (burden cannot rest on defendant in civil-contempt-like context)
- State v. Latall, 271 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2008) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- State v. Guelker, 548 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. banc 1976) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
- State v. Reed, 181 S.W.3d 567 (Mo. banc 2006) (evidence of failure to provide adequate support)
- State v. Sellers, 77 S.W.3d 2 (Mo.App.2002) (complete failure to pay supports evidence of lack of adequate support)
- Degraffenreid, 877 S.W.2d 210 (Mo.App.1994) (child-support obligations not satisfied by visitation or housing alone)
- Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, 376 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. banc 2012) (statutory interpretation to render constitutional)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (element-proof beyond reasonable doubt for certain facts)