332 S.W.3d 877
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Wolfe, a southwest Missouri resident and law student in Massachusetts, was cited for traffic offenses in Springfield during holidays.
- He mailed the clerk a jury-trial demand and a list of conflict dates.
- Wolfe sent two letters to responsible judges containing violent and provocative language.
- Police were contacted after the second letter; Wolfe was charged, tried, and convicted of two counts of tampering with a judicial officer.
- On appeal Wolfe asserts three procedural issues: venue proof, proof of threats to judges, and admissibility of adverse inferences from the judges' non-testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue proof for the letters | Wolfe argues venue in Greene County is an element and not proven. | Venue is not an element of § 565.084; location proof is unnecessary. | No venue proof required; location not an element. |
| Proof that Wolfe threatened the judges | Additional evidence beyond the letters is required to prove threats. | The letters themselves establish threatening conduct toward judges. | Letters sufficient to prove threats under § 565.084; state of mind focus. |
| Adverse inference from judges not testifying | Trial court erred by barring adverse inference against the State for not calling judges. | Judges were equally available; inference would be inappropriate and prejudicial. | No abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown; adverse inference denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Taylor, 238 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. banc 2007) (location is not a statutory element of tampering; venue not required for proof)
- State v. Bradshaw, 81 S.W.3d 14 (Mo.App.2002) (MAI-CR format may add venue without prejudice)
- State v. McGirk, 999 S.W.2d 298 (Mo.App.1999) (threats assessed by intended impact on official in proceeding)
- State v. Dizer, 119 S.W.3d 156 (Mo.App.2003) (adverse inference, standard of review for witness omissions)
- Kelly v. Jackson, 798 S.W.2d 699 (Mo.banc 1990) (adverse inference requires vital testimony)
- State v. Talley, 258 S.W.3d 899 (Mo.App.2008) (prejudice analysis for evidentiary rulings)