State v. Stewart, 560 S.W.3d 531

Stewart and T.S., former spouses attempting reconciliation, had been living together but agreed Stewart would move out; he slept in a camper on the property.
On Jan. 23, 2015, after delivering firewood, Stewart knocked on T.S.’s bedroom door while holding a gun; T.S. told him to leave.
Stewart fired one shot into the ceiling, threatened to kill T.S. and her guest, left, and then fired a second shot through a window/near the door as T.S. tried to close it.
Stewart was tried and convicted by a jury of: third‑degree domestic assault (§ 565.074), first‑degree burglary (§ 569.160), armed criminal action, and unlawful use of a weapon.
Stewart moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence for the assault and burglary convictions; the trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for third‑degree domestic assault (did victim have subjective apprehension of immediate physical injury?)	State: T.S. testified she was startled, told Stewart to leave, acknowledged she could have been injured by the gunfire; a reasonable juror could find subjective apprehension.	Stewart: T.S. testified she was not fearful and did not recall being concerned; thus no evidence of subjective apprehension.	Affirmed — jury could credit evidence showing T.S. perceived imminent injury (shot fired, threats, defensive actions).
Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree burglary (was Stewart unlawfully remaining — i.e., not licensed or privileged?)	State: Evidence showed parties agreed Stewart would move out; he returned, ignored orders to leave, and exceeded any limited license by firing a gun and threatening assault.	Stewart: He had a property interest and continued to use the residence, so he was licensed/privileged to remain.	Affirmed — jury could find Stewart had relinquished any license/privilege and knowingly remained unlawfully to commit assault.

State v. Wright, 382 S.W.3d 902 (Mo. banc 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence).
State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. banc 2014) (jury is sole credibility determiner; appellate court will not substitute its view).
State v. Oliver, 293 S.W.3d 437 (Mo. banc 2009) (use plain and ordinary dictionary meaning when statute lacks definition).
J.D.B. v. Juvenile Officer, 2 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. App. 1999) (discusses requirement of victim's subjective fear/apprehension for assault — distinguished by majority).
State v. Hill, 497 S.W.3d 391 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (discusses that property owners may be charged if they remain unlawfully).
Mantia v. Missouri Dep’t of Transp., 529 S.W.3d 804 (Mo. banc 2017) (use of Black’s Law Dictionary and dictionary definitions in statutory construction).