State v. Sistrunk
414 S.W.3d 592
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant and an unidentified accomplice robbed Victim at Lady Jane's Antiques; Victim was the store owner Brauer.
- Accomplice displayed a gun; Defendant pressed a hard object to Victim's head while acting in concert to take cash, laptop, cell phone, and credit cards.
- Defendant helped move Victim to the back, tied Victim's wrists with lamp cord and ankles with shoestrings; accomplice collected property and fled.
- Victim alerted a police officer shortly after; about a week later Victim identified Defendant in a lineup; fingerprints matched those on the lamp cord.
- Defendant testified he acted alone, without a gun, and that he admitted to taking items but denied accomplice or weapon use.
- Jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree robbery, armed criminal action, and kidnapping; trial court denied judgments of acquittal on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of accomplice liability for robbery and ACA | Sistrunk argues no proof of acting in concert or use of deadly weapon. | Defendant contends accomplice identity is not proven and weapon was not proven. | Evidence supported accomplice liability and weapon inference; convictions affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of kidnapping for substantial confinement | State contends confinement was more than incidental to robbery and increased risk of harm. | Defendant argues confinement was not substantial and did not increase risk. | Confinement was substantial/qualitatively significant; kidnapping affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 930 S.W.2d 62 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Hunter, 179 S.W.3d 317 (Mo.App. E.D.2005) (great deference to jury verdicts on sufficiency)
- State v. Scholl, 114 S.W.3d 304 (Mo.App.E.D.2003) (standard of review for sufficiency with favorable-inference rule)
- State v. Villa-Perez, 835 S.W.2d 897 (Mo. banc 1992) (accomplice liability and evidentiary sufficiency considerations)
- State v. Rivers, 554 S.W.2d 548 (Mo.App.1977) (accomplice liability framework)
- State v. Jones, 296 S.W.3d 506 (Mo.App.E.D.2009) (accomplice liability scope)
- State v. Shaw, 602 S.W.2d 17 (Mo.App.E.D.1980) (single witness credibility in appellate review)
- State v. Letica, 356 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. banc 2011) (credibility and weighing of evidence)
- State v. Tressler, 503 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.1973) (accomplice liability principles)
- State v. Brown, 824 S.W.2d 924 (Mo.App.W.D.1992) (kidnapping requires more than incidental confinement)
- State v. Morrison, 980 S.W.2d 332 (Mo.App.E.D.1998) (substantial confinement consideration in kidnapping)
- State v. McLaughlin, 265 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. banc 2008) (interpretation of kidnapping statute and substantial period concept)