State v. Simmons
364 S.W.3d 741
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Casey Simmons was convicted by a jury in Jasper County of conspiracy to commit murder in the second degree, a class B felony, and sentenced to nine years.
- The prosecution’s case centered on recorded conversations in which Simmons discussed murdering Kimberlee LeClair and disposing of the body.
- Mist y Simmons, the ex-wife, cooperated with law enforcement after being wired by Misty and Deputy Duane George; Detective McDonald supervised the investigation.
- Evidence showed Simmons and Misty purchased items at Wal-Mart—tarp, large trash bags, duct tape, and size 12 shoes—consistent with the murder plan.
- A Wal-Mart surveillance video captured Simmons paying for the items; immediate arrest followed in Misty’s car.
- Defendant argued outrageous government conduct and challenged MAI-CR 304.10-based jury instructions; the trial court denied relief, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the prosecution's conduct outrageous government conduct? | State argues conduct did not form the charges; lawfulness maintained. | Simmons contends police involvement manufactured the crime. | Not outrageous; conduct did not form the charges; conspiracy based on Simmons's acts. |
| Whether Instruction No. 5 suffered plain error for omitting 'the commission of' phrase? | State maintains proper MAI-CR framework; no error. | Simmons claims omission misstates 564.016.1 and prejudices due process. | No plain error; instruction viewed with others satisfied statutory elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shannon, 892 S.W.2d 761 (Mo.App.1995) (outrageous conduct requires charges to be based on government action)
- State v. Bradley, 882 S.W.2d 302 (Mo.App.1994) (outrageous conduct reviewed de novo; weight of evidence for trial court)
- State v. Adams, 839 S.W.2d 740 (Mo.App.1992) (police conduct not per se outrageous; depends on basis of charges)
- State v. King, 708 S.W.2d 364 (Mo.App.1986) (police activity within acceptable law-enforcement practice)
- State v. Hohensee, 650 S.W.2d 268 (Mo.App.1982) (outrageous conduct found when police themselves commit the crime)
- State v. Jay, 724 S.W.2d 293 (Mo.App.1987) (undercover operation not outrageous where charges not based on police conduct)
- State v. Pollard, 941 S.W.2d 831 (Mo.App.1997) (distinguishes entrapment from outrageous conduct; credibility and factual bases important)
- State v. Deck, 994 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. banc 1999) (plain-error standard requires manifest injustice)