State v. Lewis, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 529

Background

On June 26, 2010, Dorian Thomas (driving a gold Cadillac) was shot and killed while parked on Lurch Avenue; a stolen white Jeep Cherokee fled the scene and was later abandoned.
Fifteen-year-old Marquis McKinney told police (in a recorded July 2 interview) that Justin A. Lewis (Appellant) was driving the Cherokee, Kevin McDavis was the front-seat passenger who fired the shots after commanding Appellant to "get up on Bit," and the three then abandoned the Jeep; McKinney later had memory loss and could not recall these statements at trial.
Police recovered McDavis’s fingerprints on the Cherokee; Chappell (the victim’s passenger) identified the vehicle but not occupants; the victim died of a gunshot to the head.
Appellant, a juvenile at arrest, was Mirandized, acknowledged understanding his rights, and answered an officer’s non‑investigative question that he had recently cut his hair (used to explain discrepancy with a photo showing dreadlocks).
Appellant was tried as an adult and convicted by a jury of second‑degree felony murder, unlawful use of a weapon (discharging a firearm from a vehicle resulting in death), and two counts of armed criminal action; total sentence 49 years. He appealed raising sufficiency/accomplice liability, suppression of the haircut statement, and newly discovered evidence claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency—accomplice liability (Points I & II)	State: McKinney’s recorded statements plus corroborating facts (vehicle types, U‑turn, abandonment, flight, motive) made a submissible case that Lewis associated with and aided the crime.	Lewis: McKinney’s statement was recanted/insufficient to show Lewis drove, knew of the gun, or purposefully aided the shooting.	Affirmed: Prior inconsistent statement plus corroboration and inferences supported accomplice liability; jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Suppression—haircut statement (Point III)	State: The officer asked a non‑interrogative identification question after Miranda warnings; statute advisory about presence of parent/guardian applies to interrogation, and the hair question was not designed to elicit incriminating responses.	Lewis: Question should have been suppressed because he was not advised of the statutory right to have a parent/guardian present for juvenile questioning; question was guilt‑seeking.	Affirmed: Question was background/identification, not interrogation; no plain error in admitting the statement.
Newly discovered evidence—post‑trial recantation letters	Lewis: Two letters allegedly from McKinney recant the original statements, meriting remand for new trial.	State: Letters unauthenticated, recantations inherently unreliable and suspect (co‑participant, gang affiliation).	Denied: Letters lacked authentication and credibility; recantation deemed unreliable.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sistrunk, 414 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Barnum, 14 S.W.3d 587 (Mo. banc 2000) (accomplice liability statutory framework)
State v. Young, 369 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (submissible case for accomplice liability requires association/participation)
State v. Garner, 14 S.W.3d 67 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (prior inconsistent statements can support conviction)
State v. Pierce, 906 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (limited rule on corroboration of victim testimony in sexual assault cases)
State v. Mason, 95 S.W.3d 206 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (limits on applying Pierce beyond its facts)
State v. Wadel, 398 S.W.3d 68 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (discussion of recantation and corroboration principles)
State v. Isaiah, 874 S.W.2d 429 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (identification/background questions are not Miranda interrogation)
United States v. McLaughlin, 777 F.2d 388 (8th Cir. 1985) (booking/identification questions not interrogation)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation and warnings requirement)
State v. Nylon, 311 S.W.3d 869 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Moore, 303 S.W.3d 515 (Mo. banc 2010) (preservation of objections for appeal)
State v. Manley, 414 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (recantation testimony is inherently unreliable)
State v. Magee, 911 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (post‑trial exculpatory testimony from co‑defendant lacks credibility)
State v. Gray, 24 S.W.3d 204 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (affidavits from fellow inmates/new witnesses must be credible to warrant new trial)