Our review of this claim is limited to determining whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the essential elements of the crime. State v. Hill, 408 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (citing State v. Thomas, 387 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013)). All evidence favorable to the verdict, is accepted as true, while contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded.
Unlike the defendants in Verweire and Dublo, Reese never voluntarily retreated. See State v. Hill, 408 S.W.3d 820, 824 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (distinguishing the case from Verweire and Dublo, in part, because the defendant did not retreat). In fact, Reese's advance with the pencil was only stopped because Officer Fountain and Officer Keough intervened.
Movant filed an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his second-degree domestic assault and armed criminal action convictions. This Court affirmed his convictions in State v. Hill, 408 S.W.3d 820 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). Movant filed a timely pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. An amended motion was filed untimely by appointed counsel.
The trial court reasonably could have inferred that had Victim not taken affirmative action to protect herself from Rayburn's threats, Rayburn would have completed his stated purpose of forcing Victim to perform oral sex on him. See State v. Hill, 408 S.W.3d 820, 824 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (distinguishing Verweire on the ground that defendant did not voluntarily retreat from his initial threat but was intercepted by the police). See also, State v. Reese, 436 S.W.3d 738 (Mo.App.W.D.2014) (distinguishing Verweire given a reasonable inference that defendant would have continued his attack but for police intervention).
We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal to determine if the State made a submissible case by presenting sufficient evidence. State v. Hill, 408 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Mo.App.E.D.2013). When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences.Id. Our review is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Verweire is routinely distinguished when cited. See e.g.,State v. Rayburn, 457 S.W.3d 760, 762–64 (Mo.App. E.D.2014); State v. Reese, 436 S.W.3d 738, 742 (Mo.App. W.D.2014); State v. Hill, 408 S.W.3d 820, 823–24 (Mo.App. E.D.2013); Doss v. State, 376 S.W.3d 719, 722 (Mo.App. W.D.2012); State v. Davies, 330 S.W.3d 775, 792 (Mo.App. W.D.2010); State v. McDaniel, 254 S.W.3d 144, 146 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). Moreover, intent is a question of fact for the fact-finder to decide.
Seemingly no Missouri case relevant to this one, except Dublo, cites Verwiere without distinguishing it. See State v. Rayburn, 2014 WL 5839293, at *2-3 (Mo.App. Nov. 12, 2014); State v. Reese, 436 S.W.3d 738, 742 & n.4 (Mo.App. 2014) (also distinguishing Dublo); State v. Hill, 408 S.W.3d 820, 823-24 (Mo.App. 2013) (also distinguishing Dublo); Doss v. State, 376 S.W.3d 719, 722 (Mo.App. 2012); State v. Davies, 330 S.W.3d 775, 792 (Mo.App. 2010); State v. Rollins, 321 S.W.3d 353, 362 (Mo.App. 2010); State v. McDaniel, 254 S.W.3d 144, 146 (Mo.App. 2008). Given recent decisions by our Missouri Supreme Court, we now share Judge Spinden's "doubts concerning Verweire's correctness."
The trial court reasonably could have inferred that had Victim not taken affirmative action to protect herself from Rayburn's threats, Rayburn would have completed his stated purpose of forcing Victim to perform oral sex on him. See State v. Hill, 408 S.W.3d 820, 824 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (distinguishing Verweire on the ground that defendant did not voluntarily retreat from his initial threat but was intercepted by the police). See also, State v. Reese, 436 S.W.3d 738 (Mo.App.W.D.2014) (distinguishing Verweire given a reasonable inference that defendant would have continued his attack but for police intervention).
We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal to determine if the State made a submissible case by presenting sufficient evidence. State v. Hill, 408 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Mo.App.E.D.2013). When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences.Id. Our review is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.