Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CEDAR COUNTY Honorable James R.
Bickel, Circuit Judge
Steffen Rahmeyer, J.
L. Dickerson ("Appellant") was charged by a felony
information with the class B felony of assault in the first
degree (Count I), the unclassified felony of armed criminal
action (Count II), and the class D felony of resisting arrest
(Count III). The jury acquitted Appellant of the first two
counts, but it convicted him of the third. Appellant brings
one point on appeal, that he should have been acquitted on
Count III as well because a reasonable person would not or
should not have known that he was being placed under arrest.
Thus, Appellant frames the issue as to whether or not
Appellant reasonably should have known he was being placed
under arrest when Sheriff Huffman told Appellant that he was
going to place Appellant's hands behind Appellant's
back. The State counters that a reasonable person should have
known that he was under arrest when told that the officer
wanted the detainee to put his hands behind his back. We
decline to adopt either view but affirm the conviction
because of the later events in the exchange between Appellant
and the law enforcement officers.
reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
this Court accepts as true all evidence and its inferences in
a light most favorable to the verdict. State v.
Botts, 151 S.W.3d 372, 375 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004). This
Court disregards contrary inferences, "unless they are
such a natural and logical extension of the evidence that a
reasonable juror would be unable to disregard them."
State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 411 (Mo. banc 1993).
This Court may not supply missing evidence, or give the State
the benefit of unreasonable, speculative, or forced
inferences. State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181, 184 (Mo.
banc 2001) (internal quotations omitted). This same standard
of review applies when this Court reviews a motion for a
judgment of acquittal. Botts, 151 S.W.3d at 375.
"[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."
State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681, 687 (Mo. banc
2010) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
575.150 states, in pertinent part:
1. A person commits the crime of resisting or interfering
with arrest, detention, or stop if, knowing that a law
enforcement officer is making an arrest, or attempting to
lawfully detain or stop an individual or vehicle, or the
person reasonably should know that a law enforcement officer
is making an arrest or attempting to lawfully detain or
lawfully stop an individual or vehicle, for the purpose of
preventing the officer from effecting the arrest, stop or
detention, the person:
(1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by
using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or
by fleeing from such officer[.]
Appellant was acquitted of the underlying charges of assault
and armed criminal action, the facts concerning those charges
are necessary to add context to the resisting arrest charge.
A runner, Kenneth Snider, testified that he was training to
run a marathon. He had his wife drop him off at a church, and
he was going to run twelve miles back into town. During his
run, several dogs came onto the road, and they started
barking and nipping at him, but eventually left him alone. A
truck then pulled up behind him, followed him slowly, then
"revs up a little bit and [the driver of the truck]
pulls off to the side of the road at me." Mr. Snider
jumped in the ditch, then circled the truck around the front
"to assess the situation" and approached the
driver's side window. The driver, who was later
identified as Appellant, asked Mr. Snider who he was. Mr.
Snider answered, "Kenney Snider", and then
walked up to the truck and I kind of sat my hands on the
window of his truck. The window was down and I said, "I
am training for a marathon." And it was at that point
that [Appellant], he hit me across the face with the back of
his hand and punched me a few times and tried to start to get
out of the truck.
Snider first held the door shut and that is when he noticed
the rifle in Appellant's truck. Mr. Snider then put his
hands up and backed away as Appellant exited the truck and
proceeded to first point the gun at Mr. Snider and then at
the ground, and told Mr. Snider to "run." Appellant
then fired a rifle at Mr. Snider ten to fifteen times. A
friend who came to pick up Mr. Snider recognized the truck as
belonging to Appellant and called law enforcement. An officer
with the Dade County Sheriff's Department traveled with
Mr. Snider and found one live bullet and four spent rounds of
ammunition at the spot where Mr. Snider said the altercation
Max Huffman of the Dade County Sheriff's Office testified
that he first contacted Appellant at home by phone, convinced
Appellant to come outside to meet with him, and then drove to
Appellant's home and, at some point, was joined by
Sergeant Gregg, Trooper Raulson, and Agent West from the
Missouri Department of Conservation. They spoke to each other
in Appellant's front yard by the mailbox. According to
Sheriff Huffman, this was a consensual encounter. Sheriff
Huffman recorded their conversation, and it was admitted into
evidence as Exhibit 28. It was also transcribed by the court
reporter and included in Appellant's transcript.
recording, Sheriff Huffman asked Appellant if he had a gun
and Appellant said that he did not. Sheriff Huffman asked him
what had happened that day, and Appellant stated,
"[n]othing that I know of." The two men walked over
to Appellant's porch swing. Sheriff Huffman asked
Appellant about the man who was running on the road;
Appellant stated, "[m]y dog took after him and run him
down the road. I don't know if he is a thief or what the
f*** he is. I've had trouble with thieves." Sheriff
Huffman acknowledged that "[a] lot of people have"
had trouble with thieves.
then yelled at Sergeant Gregg because Sergeant Gregg was
allegedly looking into his truck. Appellant told Sheriff
Huffman to "[g]et out of my yard, " and Sheriff
Huffman told him, "[w]e are just here to talk."
Sheriff Huffman continued to ask Appellant about the runner
and Appellant stated that he did not know if the runner was
in his yard or not. Sheriff Huffman told him, "[w]hat I
am trying to do is figure out what really happened."
Sheriff Huffman asked Appellant, "[Y]ou didn't take
any shots at him?" Appellant said, "I ain't
shooting at nobody. If I shoot at anybody, I will probably
hit them. . . . If I catch him on my property, I will shoot
him." Sheriff Huffman then asked Appellant, "You
haven't had a confrontation just up the road here a
little bit?" Appellant responded in the negative.
Sheriff Huffman stated, "[w]ell, I just want to talk to
you, try to find out what happened." Sheriff Huffman
told Appellant, "I want to get to hear your side of the
Huffman asked Appellant, "do you want to go for a ride
with us?" Appellant responded, "I ain't going
for a ride with nobody." Sheriff Huffman asked the other
officers if they had any ideas. One of the officers said,
"We can do it one of two ways." Appellant turned
and started to ...