State of Missouri v. Blaec James Lammers
2016 Mo. LEXIS 38, 479 S.W.3d 624 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a criminal attempt conviction, the State must prove the defendant had the purpose to commit the offense and took a substantial step toward its commission, where a 'substantial step' is conduct strongly corroborative of the firmness of that purpose; furthermore, police questioning is not a Fourth Amendment seizure or Fifth Amendment custodial interrogation if a reasonable person would feel free to leave and no arrest-like restraints are imposed.
Facts:
- Blaee Lammers, a 20-year-old with serious mental health issues and a history of psychiatric hospitalizations, lived with his parents.
- Lammers saw a video about the Columbine shootings and began to envision committing a mass shooting, specifically at the local Walmart.
- On November 12 and 13, 2012, Lammers legally purchased two assault rifles and ammunition from the Bolivar Walmart.
- Lammers, having no prior experience with firearms, took the guns to a friend's apartment to learn how to operate them and engaged in target practice.
- Lammers then moved the guns to his girlfriend's father's home to store them, as he did not want his mother to find out he possessed them.
- Lammers' mother discovered a Walmart receipt for the guns in his pocket, became very concerned due to his mental illness, and contacted the sheriff's office.
- During an interview at the police station, Lammers admitted that he had planned to walk into the local Walmart and start shooting people at random until police arrived.
Procedural Posture:
- Blaee Lammers was charged with attempted first-degree assault, armed criminal action, and making a terroristic threat.
- A court-ordered mental examination found Lammers mentally competent to stand trial.
- Lammers waived his right to a jury trial, proceeding to a bench trial.
- Lammers filed a motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement during his interview.
- The trial court overruled the motion to suppress and admitted the recorded interview into evidence.
- The trial court acquitted Lammers of making a terroristic threat but found him guilty of attempted first-degree assault and armed criminal action.
- Lammers was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 15 years imprisonment.
- Lammers appealed his convictions.
- The Missouri Supreme Court granted transfer after the Missouri Court of Appeals rendered an opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's purchase of assault rifles and engaging in target practice, combined with a detailed admission of a mass shooting plan, constitute both the purpose and a substantial step for attempted first-degree assault, and were the defendant's statements to police admissible given he voluntarily accompanied officers and was not under arrest-like restraints?
Opinions:
Majority - Mary R. Russell, Judge
Yes, there was sufficient evidence to establish Blaee Lammers' purpose and a substantial step for attempted first-degree assault, and his statements to police were admissible as his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. The encounter with police was consensual from the outset; Lammers voluntarily accompanied officers to the station, was not restrained, and was explicitly told he was not under arrest. Therefore, he was not 'seized' under the Fourth Amendment, nor was he subjected to a 'custodial interrogation' requiring Miranda warnings under the Fifth Amendment, even though the detective read them. The court cited Florida v. Bostick and State v. Glass. Regarding the attempt conviction, Lammers' intent to kill or cause serious physical injury could be inferred from circumstantial evidence and his own statements, including envisioning a mass shooting after a Columbine video, purchasing assault rifles for this purpose, practicing shooting, and detailing his plan to shoot random people at Walmart. His repeated attempts to deceive police about the purpose of the guns were also probative of criminal intent. His purchase of two assault rifles and ammunition, combined with extensive target practice, constituted a 'substantial step' because this conduct was 'strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor’s purpose to complete the commission of the offense.' The court clarified that the 'substantial step' test focuses on what the actor has already done, lowering the threshold from previous 'act of perpetration' requirements. Lammers' relinquishment of the guns to his girlfriend's father was not credible evidence of abandonment, as the father believed it was temporary. Finally, the court explicitly overruled State ex rel. Verweire v. Moore, finding it wrongly decided for requiring direct proof of a physical act immediately preceding the crime (e.g., pulling a trigger) to establish intent or a substantial step for attempted first-degree assault, which encroached on the fact-finder's role.
Dissenting - Richard B. Teitelman, Judge
No, Blaee Lammers' conduct did not constitute a substantial step strongly corroborating a firm plan to commit first-degree assault, and therefore, he should not have been convicted of attempted first-degree assault. The dissent argues that the 'substantial step' definition requires conduct that would 'most likely be undertaken only as a precursor to completing the intended criminal offense.' Lammers' actions — lawfully purchasing guns and target practicing — do not meet this standard, as he did not lie in wait, entice a victim, reconnoiter a location, unlawfully possess guns, or solicit assistance, unlike the examples provided in the 1973 comment to the statute. The dissent heavily relies on State v. Ess, where the court reversed an attempted child molestation conviction because placing a child's hand over clothed genitals was not a substantial step toward skin-to-skin contact as required by the statute. The dissent contends that if Ess's conduct, which brought him to the 'cusp of completing the offense' save for the final physical act, was insufficient, then Lammers' actions of merely buying guns and target shooting, without approaching any victim or location, are even less sufficient. Lammers' relinquishment of the guns afterward further indicated a lack of firm purpose. The dissent concludes that without Lammers' 'terrifying thoughts,' the case against him crumbles, and his conduct was not criminal.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of 'attempt' liability in Missouri by affirming that preparatory acts, such as purchasing weapons and practicing, can constitute a 'substantial step' when strongly corroborated by the actor's stated intent. The explicit overruling of Verweire clarifies that direct proof of a physical act immediately preceding the crime (e.g., pulling a trigger) is not necessary to establish intent or a substantial step for attempted first-degree assault, reaffirming the focus on the actor's purpose and corroborative conduct. It also reinforces the principle that voluntary interviews without arrest-like restraints do not trigger Fourth or Fifth Amendment protections prior to formal arrest, making it easier for law enforcement to obtain admissible statements in non-custodial settings.
