State v. Harrell
342 S.W.3d 908, 2011 WL 2506463, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 877 (2011)
Rule of Law:
An object's physical characteristics, rather than its intended use or common designation, can qualify it as a 'deadly weapon' (specifically a 'dagger') under Missouri statutes, and its 'use' in gaining entry for Armed Criminal Action in a first-degree burglary setting can be established through sufficient circumstantial evidence.
Facts:
- On June 21, 2009, Lee Harrell visited friends at Robin Johnson’s home in Rolla and, upon returning, took a metal replica 'Sword of Narnia' without Johnson's permission, stating that somebody 'was trying to kill him.'
- Robin Johnson kept the replica sword stored away, did not let her children play with it, and viewed it as dangerous.
- Rolla police officer Thomas Davis responded to a report of lights going on and off inside the Tenth Street Baptist Church in Rolla.
- Officer Davis discovered a basement window of the church had been 'busted out' with glass and a screen lying on the ground.
- Officer Davis saw Lee Harrell poke his head out the broken window, then retreat inside, and eventually exit through the window and was taken into custody.
- Upon entering the church, Officer Davis observed offices that had been 'gone through,' audio equipment pulled from the wall, tool marks on a door as if someone had tried prying it open, and the replica sword, along with a towel, under a pew in the sanctuary.
- The replica sword was later identified by Johnson as the one Harrell had taken and was noted to be 'all banged up, scratched up' with deep scratches on its tip, a condition it was not in when Harrell took it.
- James Gregory Brown, a key-holder for the Tenth Street Baptist Church, confirmed that Lee Harrell did not have permission to enter the church.
Procedural Posture:
- Lee Harrell was charged with the class B felony of first-degree burglary and the unclassified felony of armed criminal action.
- A jury found Lee Harrell guilty of first-degree burglary and armed criminal action.
- The trial court sentenced Lee Harrell to 25 years in the Department of Corrections (10 years for burglary running consecutively to 15 years for armed criminal action).
- Lee Harrell (Defendant) appealed his convictions to the Missouri Court of Appeals, challenging the classification of the replica sword as a deadly weapon, the sufficiency of the evidence to prove its use during the burglary, and the language of the verdict-directing instruction for armed criminal action.
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 metal replica sword, characterized as a carnival prize, qualify as a 'deadly weapon' (specifically a 'dagger') under Missouri law for purposes of first-degree burglary and armed criminal action, and can circumstantial evidence be sufficient to prove its use in gaining entry to a building during a burglary?
Opinions:
Majority - DON E. BURRELL
Yes, a metal replica sword can qualify as a 'deadly weapon' (dagger), and sufficient circumstantial evidence can prove its use in gaining entry during a burglary. The court first addressed whether the replica sword constituted a 'deadly weapon,' specifically a 'dagger,' as statutorily defined. While the term 'dagger' is not explicitly defined in the relevant chapter, the court referenced its prior interpretation from State v. Martin as 'a short weapon with a sharp point used for stabbing' and further characteristics from State v. Payne, which included attributes like a fixed blade, sharpened edges, a length between 4 and 25 inches, and a hilt. The court found that the replica sword—22.5 inches long, made of solid metal, weighing over a pound, with a sharp point and sharpened edges—met the Martin description and most Payne characteristics. It emphasized that an item's classification as a deadly weapon depends on its inherent physical attributes, not its intended use or common designation, citing Payne and State v. Williams. Johnson's testimony regarding the sword's danger and Harrell's statement when taking it further supported its recognition as a weapon. Second, the court addressed the sufficiency of evidence to prove the replica sword's 'use' in gaining entry for Armed Criminal Action (ACA). Acknowledging precedents like State v. Carpenter, which require the deadly weapon to be used to 'gain entry' for ACA in a burglary setting, the court found ample circumstantial evidence to support this conclusion. The replica sword was 'all banged up, scratched up' with a dented, dulled, and scratched tip, and the church's basement window was busted out with glass and a screen outside, and a portion of the window frame was bent. The court concluded that a reasonable inference from this evidence was that Harrell used the replica sword to break the glass and pry out the window screen to gain entry. The court affirmed that it need not resolve potential conflicts between Carpenter and State v. Blackwell because sufficient evidence existed even under the stricter interpretation. Finally, the court reviewed the ACA verdict-directing instruction for plain error. It found no manifest injustice from: 1) the inclusion of a 'dangerous instrument' definition when the instruction specified 'deadly weapon,' as the variance did not prejudice Harrell given he was prepared to contest the 'deadly weapon' claim and the punishment range was unaffected; 2) the omission of a 'deadly weapon' definition, as it was not mandated without a written request, and defense counsel was permitted to argue the legal definition to the jury; and 3) the omission of 'knowing,' because Harrell did not dispute his knowing possession or use of the replica sword, only its classification as a deadly weapon.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the definition of a 'deadly weapon' under Missouri law, particularly in its application to non-traditional items. It establishes that an object's physical characteristics, such as sharpness, material, and dimensions, are paramount in its classification as a 'dagger,' overriding its common perception as a 'toy' or its original design intent. The ruling also underscores that the 'use' element for Armed Criminal Action in a first-degree burglary can be satisfied by strong circumstantial evidence, even without direct observation. This broadens the scope of what can constitute a deadly weapon and provides guidance on how courts should assess its use in the absence of direct proof, impacting future cases involving items that blur the line between implements and weapons, and reinforcing the challenges of proving a manifest injustice for unpreserved instructional errors.
