State v. Meeks, 427 S.W.3d 876

Background

At a 2011 block party, Meeks shot at another man; police later found him in a building and attempted to arrest him after he shut the door and crouched in a stairwell.
Officers ordered Meeks to show his hands; he did not comply, kept his hands near his waistband, and pushed up while officers forced him to the ground and handcuffed him.
Meeks was convicted by a jury of first-degree assault, resisting arrest, armed criminal action, two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of a weapon; he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender.
The resisting arrest verdict director submitted that Meeks resisted “by using physical force or physical interference.” Meeks did not object to the instruction at trial and sought plain error review on appeal.
The State conceded error on the persistent-offender sentencing finding; the record showed only one prior felony (making Meeks a prior, not persistent, offender).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether including “physical interference” in the resisting-arrest verdict director was plain error	Meeks: instruction misstated the law by allowing conviction on an element not in the statute for resisting one’s own arrest	State: MAI wording authorized the phrase and facts supported submission; "physical interference" applicable	Court: Reversed resisting-arrest conviction for plain error — "physical interference" applies only to interfering with another’s arrest and improperly relieved State of burden
Whether prosecutor’s closing argument relying on "physical interference" compounded error	Meeks: prosecutor urged jury to convict solely on nonstatutory ground (failure to comply/physical interference)	State: argued facts amounted to interference/force under the instruction	Held: Prosecutor repeatedly relied on the erroneous instruction, which reinforced the manifest injustice requiring reversal
Whether trial court plainly erred by sentencing Meeks as a persistent offender	Meeks: only one prior felony was shown; persistent-offender status not proven	State: conceded failure to prove persistent offender	Held: Sentencing vacated on assault count and remanded for resentencing as a prior offender within statutory range
Whether evidence of "physical force" alone could have supported resisting-arrest conviction despite instructional error	State: Meeks’ pushing up constituted physical force sufficient under precedent	Meeks: jury was allowed to convict on nonstatutory ground; error was not harmless	Held: Even if physical force could have supported conviction, inclusion of "physical interference" and prosecutor’s focus on noncompliance relieved State of proof; reversal required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wurtzberger, 40 S.W.3d 893 (Mo. banc 2001) (plain-error review standard for unpreserved instructional error)
State v. Doolittle, 896 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. banc 1995) (instructional error constitutes plain error when it affected the verdict)
State v. Mangum, 390 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. App. 2013) (reversal more likely where instruction excuses State from proving contested element)
State v. Shatto, 786 S.W.2d 232 (Mo. App. 1990) (distinguishing resisting own arrest from interfering with another)
State v. Bass, 81 S.W.3d 595 (Mo. App. 2002) (disparate statutory wording implies legislative intent)
State v. Belton, 108 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. App. 2003) (muscle exertion or stiffening can constitute "physical force")
Stewart v. State, 387 S.W.3d 424 (Mo. App. 2012) (upheld similar wording in verdict director but did not analyze statutory distinction)
State v. Severe, 307 S.W.3d 640 (Mo. banc 2010) (sentence exceeding statutory maximum results in manifest injustice)
State v. Nesbitt, 299 S.W.3d 26 (Mo. App. 2009) (remand required for resentencing within statutory range)