State v. Barnum
14 S.W.3d 587 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a theory of accomplice liability, a person aids in the commission of an offense through encouragement if their conduct, including words, gestures, or signs, countenances or approves the criminal action of another. Mere presence at the scene is insufficient, but presence combined with affirmative acts of encouragement can support a conviction.
Facts:
- On August 11, 1997, fourteen-year-old Candis West went to the home of her boyfriend, Brandon Srader.
- At the home, Jessica Griffin, Christina Cassidy, and Heather Belt, upon learning Candis was upset about Brandon's new relationship with Jessica, concocted a plan to beat Candis up.
- Norma Barnum, Brandon's nineteen-year-old sister, was aware of the girls' intention to attack Candis.
- Barnum accompanied the group, including Candis, as they drove to a low-water bridge in Pettis County.
- At the bridge, the three girls assaulted Candis for an hour, beating her, dragging her by the hair, attempting to burn her hair, forcing her to remove her clothes, and throwing her into the water.
- During the assault, Barnum stood by, laughed, and yelled statements such as, “yeah, yeah, let’s kill her, kill her ... run her over with the van.”
- After the attack, Barnum left the scene with the perpetrators, making no attempt to assist the severely beaten and naked Candis.
Procedural Posture:
- Norma Barnum was charged in a Missouri trial court with assault in the first degree under a theory of accomplice liability.
- Following a trial, a jury found Barnum guilty.
- The jury recommended a sentence of ten years imprisonment.
- The trial court sentenced Barnum in accordance with the jury’s recommendation.
- Barnum, as the appellant, appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court of Missouri, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant's presence, laughter, and verbal encouragement during an assault sufficient evidence to support a conviction for first-degree assault under a theory of accomplice liability?
Opinions:
Majority - William Ray Price, Jr.
Yes. A defendant’s presence, laughter, and verbal encouragement during an assault is sufficient evidence to support a conviction under an accomplice liability theory. Missouri law holds all persons who act in concert equally guilty, and accomplice liability encompasses any action intended to assist another in criminal conduct, including encouragement. While mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient for a conviction, encouragement is enough, and it is defined as any conduct that countenances or approves of the criminal action. The court considered that Barnum was aware of the plan, accompanied the attackers, watched the entire assault while laughing, and shouted phrases like “just kill her.” This conduct, combined with her failure to assist the victim and her departure with the attackers, constituted clear support and encouragement of the assault, making her liable as an accomplice.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms a broad interpretation of accomplice liability, emphasizing that affirmative acts of encouragement are sufficient to establish culpability. The court clarifies that words of support, even if not directly acted upon, can transform a bystander into a legally responsible party. This precedent solidifies the principle that one does not need to physically participate in an offense to be convicted of it; demonstrating approval and support for the criminal act is enough to be considered an aider and abettor. The ruling provides a clear signal that passive acquiescence combined with overt acts of encouragement crosses the legal threshold from 'mere presence' to criminal liability.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Barnum