Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Warren

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division

September 11, 2015

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JASON SCOTT WARREN, Defendant-Appellant

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUTLER COUNTY. Honorable Michael M. Pritchett, Circuit Judge.

         For Appellant: Samuel Buffaloe of Columbia, MO.

         For Respondent: Chris Koster (Attorney General), Karen L. Kramer of Jefferson City, MO.

         Gary W. Lynch, J. - Concurs, William W. Francis, Jr., J. - Concurs.

          OPINION

          Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, J.

          A jury convicted Jason Scott Warren (" Defendant" ) of assault in the second degree in breaking the foot of James Blackwell (" Victim" ) with a motor vehicle, and of speeding. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a prior offender to concurrent terms of five years in the Department of Corrections for assault in the second degree and 120 days in county jail for speeding. Defendant appeals only the trial court's judgment for assault in the second degree, and, in a single point, asserts that " [t]he trial court erred in entering judgment and sentence for . . . assault in the second degree . . . in that there was not sufficient evidence to show that [Defendant] 'recklessly' caused serious physical injury to [Victim]." We disagree, and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Page 2

Standard of Review

         Our Supreme Court has described our standard of review as follows:

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, this Court limits its determination to whether a reasonable juror could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307, 309 (Mo. banc 2005). In so doing, the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding any evidence and inferences contrary to the verdict. Id. As such, this Court will not weigh the evidence anew since " the fact-finder may believe all, some, or none of the testimony of a witness when considered with the facts, circumstances and other testimony in the case." State v. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo. banc 2002).

State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 425 (Mo. banc 2008). In addition:

Evidence is sufficient to support guilt if any reasonable inference supports guilt, even if other equally valid inferences do not. State v. Breedlove, 348 S.W.3d 810, 814 (Mo.App. S.D.2011). . . . " The credibility and the effects of conflicts or inconsistencies in testimony are questions for the jury, and the appellate court will not interfere with the jury's role of weighing the credibility of witnesses." State v. Coleman, 263 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Mo.App. S.D.2008).

State v. Simrin, 384 S.W.3d 713, 718 (Mo.App. S.D. 2012). Finally, a claim the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty in a criminal case is reviewed on the merits and not as plain error even when the defendant failed to raise the claim before the trial court as in this appeal. State v. Claycomb, No. SC94526, 470 S.W.3d 358, 2015 WL 3979728, *2-3 (Mo. banc June 30, 2015).

         Facts and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.