State v. Starkey, 380 S.W.3d 636

Appellant Mark Starkey, previously married to Joanna Wilson, learned of Joanna's affair with Barker and separated from Joanna.
Starkey made about forty phone calls to Barker in 24 hours, leaving threatening messages and sending obscene mail.
Barker reported threats to police; prosecutors filed four counts of aggravated stalking against Starkey involving Barker, Prosecutor, Asst. Prosecutor, and Judge Bloodworth.
Starkey was arrested in Texas, bond was set, charges were dismissed at a preliminary hearing, then re-filed later; venue was changed to St. Louis County.
From Oct–Dec 2008, Starkey made numerous calls/faxes to the Butler County office and to Judge Bloodworth, including threats to kill and to blow up a building.
Trial occurred July 25–28, 2011, in St. Louis County; Starkey was convicted on four counts of aggravated stalking and sentenced to four consecutive four-year terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Judge Bloodworth	Starkey claims no credible threat and no harassing course of conduct.	State argues continuing communications and threats created a harassing course and credible threat.	Evidence sufficient to submit aggravated stalking of Bloodworth.
Sufficiency of evidence for Prosecutor	Starkey contends calls/communications failed to show credible threat to Prosecutor.	State asserts harassing course and threats caused distress and satisfied credible threat.	Evidence sufficient to submit aggravated stalking of Prosecutor.
Sufficiency of evidence for Asst. Prosecutor	Starkey argues no credible threat against Asst. Prosecutor and some calls unaffirmed.	State contends continuing course and threats affected Asst. Prosecutor, satisfying elements.	Evidence sufficient to submit aggravated stalking of Asst. Prosecutor.
Jurisdiction over Missouri	Starkey argues conduct occurred in Texas; Missouri has no jurisdiction.	State contends Missouri jurisdiction because results occurred in Missouri and conduct targeted Missourians.	Missouri had jurisdiction; no error in denial of lack-of-jurisdiction claim.
Trial court's admission of testimony about credibility	Starkey argues Prosecutor's statement that threats were credible invaded jury’s province.	State contends Prosecutor testimony was lay, non-expert, and helpful to jury.	No manifest injustice; ruling not plain error; testimony permissible.

State v. Farris, 125 S.W.3d 382 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (standard for sufficiency review: view in the State's favor)
State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. banc 1993) (elements derivation and sufficiency analysis)
State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. banc 1989) (deference to trier of fact in sufficiency review)
State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. banc 1998) (guidance on appellate deference to jury verdicts)
State v. Mabry, 285 S.W.3d 780 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (course of conduct and credible threat considerations)
State v. Bernhardt, 338 S.W.3d 830 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (threats communicated to third parties can satisfy elements)
State v. Swoboda, 658 S.W.2d 24 (Mo. banc 1983) (private-party name-calling relevance to legitimate interests)
State v. Vaughn, 366 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. banc 2012) (unprotected conduct and fear elements)
Bank of Urbana v. Wright, 880 S.W.2d 921 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994) (statutory interpretation of amendments and purposes)
State ex rel. Taylor v. Moore, 136 S.W.3d 799 (Mo. banc 2004) (expert versus lay testimony and invasion of jury function)
State v. Clements, 789 S.W.2d 101 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990) (limitations on expert opinion on ultimate issues)
State v. Presberry, 128 S.W.3d 80 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (lay opinion admissibility and helpfulness to jury)
State v. Jefferson, 341 S.W.3d 690 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (lay witness testimony standards for opinions)
State v. Roper, 136 S.W.3d 891 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (plain error review framework)