State v. Young
369 S.W.3d 52
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Latrail Young was convicted by a jury of second-degree robbery, first-degree assault, armed criminal action, and resisting arrest in Missouri circuit court.
- The state presented evidence Young acted as an accomplice in first-degree assault and in armed criminal action related to the shooting of the victim.
- The trial court instructed on first-degree assault with MAI-CR 3d 304.04 language stating Young acted together with or aided another, instead of the required aided or encouraged.
- The court found sufficient evidence for accomplice liability, as Young approached the victim, entered the apartment, held the victim at gunpoint, and directed/participated with another in shooting and ransacking.
- Young preserved objections to the instruction; the court proceeded with the improper wording despite controlling MAI-CR notes.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, concluding the instructional defect was not prejudicial given the record, and upheld the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for accomplice liability | Young aided or acted with another in assault and armed action. | No evidence Young acted together with or aided the shooter. | Sufficient evidence supports accomplice liability. |
| Instructional error of MAI-CR 304.04 language | Phrase used was acceptable semantics; not prejudicial. | Language violated Notes on Use; prejudicial error. | Error; but not reversible due to lack of prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Puig, 37 S.W.3d 373 (Mo.App. S.D.2001) (disjunctive accomplice liability analysis)
- State v. Bamum, 14 S.W.3d 587 (Mo. banc 2000) (accomplice liability broad doctrine; principals and accessories eliminated)
- State v. Biggs, 170 S.W.3d 498 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (unanimity on guilt; means of committing offense not required to be the same for all jurors)
- State v. Galbreath, 244 S.W.3d 239 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (jury understanding of 'aid' vs 'acted together with' and notes on use)
- State v. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. banc 2010) (MAI-CR instruction error presumptively prejudicial; standard of reversal)
- State v. Jones, 296 S.W.3d 506 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (sufficiency review standard for acquittal judgments)