State v. Stokes, 492 S.W.3d 622

On Oct. 18, 2013, Curtis Stokes forcibly took money and items from Kendrick Latchman at gunpoint; a second man (John Bennett) was nearby and later identified by the victim as a lookout.
Stokes and Bennett were arrested; while being booked at the police station they argued, and a detective overheard Bennett tell Stokes to “own what he did” and Stokes reply, “quit snitching.”
At trial the prosecutor elicited the detective’s testimony about both men’s out-of-court statements over Stokes’s hearsay objections.
The jury was instructed on first-degree robbery and the lesser included offense of second-degree robbery, with armed criminal action instructions attached to each robbery instruction.
The jury convicted Stokes of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action; Stokes appealed, arguing (1) improper admission of hearsay and (2) error in allowing an armed criminal action instruction tied to second-degree robbery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of post-arrest statements	Prosecution: statements were admissions or context for an admission and therefore admissible	Stokes: statements were hearsay and improperly admitted	Court: Detective’s testimony about Stokes’ "quit snitching" was admissible as a party admission; Bennett’s remark was admissible to provide context for Stokes’ admission
Armed criminal action instruction tied to 2nd-degree robbery	Prosecution: A jury may find a defendant guilty of armed criminal action in connection with second-degree robbery	Stokes: Incompatibility—if jury found only second-degree robbery, it could not find weapon involvement	Court: Not erroneous—weapon may have aided the felony without satisfying first-degree robbery elements; statutes and precedent allow ACA to attach to second-degree robbery

State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings and prejudice requirement)
State v. Simmons, 233 S.W.3d 235 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (party-opponent admissions and hearsay principles)
State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. banc 1993) (defendant need not expressly confess for statement to be admission against interest)
State v. Webber, 982 S.W.2d 317 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (third-party statements admissible to supply context for admissions)
State v. Spica, 389 S.W.2d 35 (Mo. banc 1965) (admitting third-party statements in connection with defendant’s admissions)
State v. Jones, 479 S.W.3d 100 (Mo. banc 2016) (broad construction of armed criminal action; weapon may "aid" felony by bolstering defendant’s confidence)
Tisius v. State, 183 S.W.3d 207 (Mo. banc 2006) (jury may consider lesser included offenses without first acquitting greater offense)
State v. Busey, 143 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (affirming that armed criminal action may be submitted in connection with second-degree robbery)