Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Third Division
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent,
EMMANUEL V. JONES, Appellant.
from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis Hon. Nicole
T. Quigless, J
V. Jones ("Defendant") appeals from the judgment of
the circuit court convicting him of one count of resisting
arrest following a bench trial. Defendant argues the court
erred in finding him guilty because there was insufficient
evidence he knew, or reasonably should have known, he was
under arrest, and the court erred in speculating that the
arresting officer warned Defendant he was under arrest
because there was no evidence to support this finding. We
affirm the judgment.
and Procedural Background
review the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from
the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment.
State v. Hutson, 487 S.W.3d 100, 109 (Mo. App. W.D.
evening of May 29, 2015, Defendant was participating in a
peaceful protest march in downtown St. Louis. There was heavy
pedestrian and vehicular traffic downtown due to a baseball
game and it being Friday night. Throughout the evening,
Defendant and approximately two dozen other protesters walked
into the streets, impeding traffic. Numerous uniformed police
officers patrolling the area repeatedly warned the
protesters, including Defendant, to "get out of the
street" and that anyone who failed to comply could be
arrested. At times, the protesters complied with the
officers' warning and temporarily moved back onto the
sidewalks, but later returned to the street. The warnings
continued throughout the evening.
before midnight, Defendant and the other protesters were
marching through traffic down the middle of Washington
Avenue. When the protesters reached Tucker Boulevard, they
crossed the intersection into traffic against the traffic
light, blocking traffic and endangering pedestrians and
vehicles. After this incident, Lieutenant Dan Zarrick
("Lt. Zarrick"), the commanding officer of the St.
Louis Police unit monitoring the protest, decided it was time
to start arresting the protesters for impeding traffic. Lt.
Zarrick called additional officers to the area and ordered an
officer to announce that protestors not obeying orders to get
out of the street would be placed under arrest. Lt. Zarrick
then ordered his officers to start making arrests. Officer
Daniel Osorio ("Officer Osorio"), a bike patrol
officer assigned to the downtown area, responded to Lt.
Zarrick's call. He was in uniform when he arrived on the
videos were stipulated to and admitted into evidence by the
parties. The video relevant to Defendant's arrest showed
Lt. Zarrick, Officer Osorio, and several other officers
approaching a small group of protesters, including Defendant.
Officer Osorio testified that Lt. Zarrick yelled "grab
anybody, they're all under arrest, they're all in the
street." On the video, an officer can be heard stating,
"Grab anybody, they're all in the streets." As
the officers began arresting one of the protesters standing
with Defendant, Defendant and two other protesters started
walking away. Officer Osorio testified he commanded Defendant
to "stop, " although this is not heard on the
video. The video then shows Officer Osorio run in front of
Defendant with his Taser drawn and shout, "Get
back!" Defendant ignored Officer Osorio's verbal
commands and continued walking towards him, stating "no,
I'm going this way, I'm leaving." When Defendant
was a few feet away, Officer Osorio again shouted, "Get
back!" Defendant then quickly zigzagged left, then
right, pushed Officer Osorio's shoulder with his hand,
and ran past him. In response, Officer Osorio aimed his Taser
at Defendant and fired, causing Defendant to fall to the
ground. Officer Osorio then placed Defendant under arrest for
impeding traffic and resisting arrest.
was charged with resisting arrest, in violation of Section
15.10.010 of the Revised Code of the City of St.
Louis ("Section 15.10.010" or the
"Ordinance"). Defendant was found guilty following
a bench trial in the City of St. Louis Municipal Court.
Defendant timely appealed his conviction and requested a
trial de novo in the circuit court. Defendant was
again found guilty following a bench trial in the circuit
court. Defendant was sentenced to pay a $500 fine. This
raises two points on appeal. In Point I, Defendant argues the
circuit court erred in finding him guilty of resisting arrest
because the City's evidence was insufficient to sustain a
finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in that no
evidence was offered at trial in which a reasonable
factfinder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, he was under
arrest during the events for which he is charged. In Point
II, Defendant argues the circuit court erred when it
speculated that Officer Osorio issued a warning of arrest to
Defendant because it was improper for the court to supply
missing evidence and the evidence presented at trial did not
support the court's speculation in that two witnesses
testified that Officer Osorio did not issue a warning of
arrest and the video entered into evidence did not reflect a
warning of arrest from Officer Osorio.
Point One - Sufficiency of the Evidence for Resisting
argument in Point I requires us to determine whether there
was sufficient evidence of Defendant's mental state to
support his conviction for resisting arrest. When reviewing a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
criminal conviction, appellate review is limited to
determining whether sufficient evidence was presented from
which a reasonable factfinder could find the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Hutson, 487 S.W.3d at
108; see State v. Clark, 490 S.W.3d 704, 707 (Mo.
banc 2016). We view the evidence and all reasonable
inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most
favorable to the jury's verdict, disregarding any
contrary evidence and inferences. Hutson, 487 S.W.3d
at 108. However, this Court "may not supply missing
evidence, or give the [State] the benefit of unreasonable,
speculative or forced inferences." Clark, 490
S.W.3d at 707. This court "does not act as a super juror
with veto powers but gives great deference to the trier of
fact." State v. Lewis, 466 S.W.3d 629, 631 (Mo.
App. E.D. 2015). We will not reweigh the evidence because
"the fact-finder may believe all, some, or none of the
testimony of a witness when ...