State v. Prince, 525 S.W.3d 596

Defendant drove up to Victim, a schoolbound minor, and after she crossed the street to a bus stop, he circled, pointed a gun at her, and ordered her into his white car.
Defendant drove a few blocks, parked, pulled down his pajama pants, leaned back, and demanded that Victim perform oral sex; when she resisted he pointed the gun at her head.
A bystander observed the suspicious pickup, called 911, and later identified the stopped vehicle to police; officers pulled the car over and arrested Defendant; a revolver was found behind the passenger seat.
Defendant testified he was partially paralyzed on the left side and denied pointing a gun or demanding oral sex, claiming the acts were physically impossible for him.
The trial court convicted Defendant of attempted first-degree sodomy, kidnapping, and two counts of armed criminal action and sentenced him to 18 years; Defendant appealed arguing insufficient evidence for attempted sodomy and armed criminal action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted first-degree sodomy (substantial step and purpose)	State: Defendant forced Victim into car, drove to a secluded area, pulled down pants and demanded oral sex at gunpoint — acts strongly corroborate intent and a substantial step toward sodomy	Defendant: His paralysis made the alleged conduct impossible; evidence insufficient to prove a substantial step or purpose to commit sodomy	Court: Evidence was sufficient; pulling down pants and demanding oral sex at gunpoint constituted a substantial step and showed purpose; testimonial credibility for paralysis rejected
Sufficiency of evidence for armed criminal action (use of deadly weapon)	State: Victim testified Defendant threatened her with a gun; officers recovered a revolver in the car	Defendant: (implicit) disputed victim’s account and physical ability to wield a gun	Court: Evidence supported that a deadly weapon was used; conviction for armed criminal action affirmed
Withdrawal/abandonment as defense to attempt	State: Even if Defendant stopped, abandonment after taking a substantial step is not a defense	Defendant: Claimed he ceased intent before completing act	Held: Once a substantial step occurred, any later abandonment was too late to negate attempt

State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. banc) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Hosier, 454 S.W.3d 883 (Mo. banc) (accept evidence favorable to verdict on appeal)
State v. Wright, 445 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. App. W.D.) (courts may not supply speculative inferences)
State v. Davis, 422 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. App. E.D.) (substantial-step analysis for attempt)
State v. Kusgen, 178 S.W.3d 595 (Mo. App. W.D.) (conduct showing firmness of intent suffices for attempt)
State v. Rollins, 321 S.W.3d 353 (Mo. App. W.D.) (abandonment generally not a defense once substantial step taken)
State v. Rayburn, 457 S.W.3d 760 (Mo. App. E.D.) (liability attaches despite withdrawal after substantial steps)
State v. Sistrunk, 414 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. App. E.D.) (avoid reweighing evidence on appeal)
State v. Scholl, 114 S.W.3d 304 (Mo. App. E.D.) (supporting authority cited in opinion)