479 S.W.3d 649
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Eric Myles was convicted by a jury of first-degree assault (Count I), first-degree robbery (Count III), and two counts of armed criminal action (Counts II and IV) based on a January 10, 2012 gas-station attack in which the victim was shot and his car taken.
- Victim could not identify the attackers at trial. Myles initially denied involvement but later gave statements implicating himself, Anthony Greene, and Antwon(n) Johnson, describing a shared "mission," his physical participation (punch/brick), and that Johnson shot the victim.
- The State submitted verdict-directing instructions (Jury Instructions Nos. 6 and 8) that used "acted with" language in the body of each instruction; a separate accomplice-liability instruction (Jury Instruction No. 5) was also given.
- Myles did not object to the verdict-directors at the instruction conference (counsel said "no objection") and did not raise instruction error in his motion for new trial; he preserved only a sufficiency challenge via a pre-submission motion for judgment of acquittal (denied).
- On appeal Myles urged (1) plain error in giving Instructions 6 and 8 for failing to follow MAI-CR Notes on Use re: accomplice liability and for ascribing unsupported conduct; and (2) insufficiency of the evidence to support convictions on Counts I–IV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Myles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court plainly erred in submitting Jury Instruction No. 6 (first-degree assault verdict director) | Instruction error, even if present, did not cause manifest injustice; accomplice liability was properly presented to jury via Instruction No. 5 and evidence supported conviction | Instruction No. 6 deviated from MAI-CR accomplice-liability Notes (introductory paragraph not included and no separate “acted together/aided” paragraph), failed to require the culpable mental state for accomplice liability, and permitted conviction as a principal without evidentiary support | No plain error. Although Instructions 6 and 8 deviated from MAI-CR, Instruction No. 5 properly instructed accomplice liability and errors were not outcome-determinative; convictions affirmed |
| Whether the trial court plainly erred in submitting Jury Instruction No. 8 (first-degree robbery verdict director) | Same as above: jury properly instructed overall and evidence supported accomplice liability | Instruction No. 8 improperly ascribed conduct elements to Myles ("acted with") without evidentiary support and failed to follow MAI-CR Notes, raising manifest injustice | No plain error for same reasons: separate accomplice instruction and strong evidence meant error did not taint verdict |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for first-degree assault and related armed criminal action (Counts I & II) | Evidence (Myles’s statements + victim testimony) showed Myles associated with and participated in the criminal venture; accomplice liability suffices to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence insufficient as to principal liability; verdict-director ambiguity undermines convictions, and armed criminal action convictions dependent on vacated predicates | Evidence sufficient. Viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State, reasonable juror could find accomplice liability and thus elements of assault and armed criminal action beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for first-degree robbery and related armed criminal action (Counts III & IV) | Same: testimony and defendant’s statements support accomplice liability for robbery and therefore armed criminal action | Instructional defects and lack of direct evidence tying Myles to the taking/weapon usage make convictions unsupported | Evidence sufficient. Victim’s testimony and Myles’s admissions allowed a reasonable juror to find Myles guilty as an accomplice of robbery and armed criminal action |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wurtzberger, 40 S.W.3d 893 (Mo. 2001) (unpreserved instructional objections do not foreclose plain-error review under Rule 30.20)
- State v. Jones, 296 S.W.3d 506 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (similar MAI-CR deviations not plain error where separate accomplice instruction and evidence supported guilt)
- State v. Livingston, 801 S.W.2d 344 (Mo. 1990) (instructions imposing an additional burden on the State beyond legal requirement do not prejudice defendant)
- State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. 2011) (standard of appellate sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to the verdict)
- State v. Jordan, 404 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (plain error requires showing manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice)