State v. Hibbert
14 S.W.3d 249, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 287, 2000 WL 174653 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's affirmative participation in a crime, as required for accomplice liability, can be proven by circumstantial evidence, including post-crime conduct such as destroying evidence or making false exculpatory statements, which demonstrates a consciousness of guilt.
Facts:
- Steve Johnson was extremely upset that his ex-girlfriend, Tammy Davis, was dating Rick Kimbrough and had previously stated he was going to kill Kimbrough.
- On March 6, 1997, Johnson, along with Michael Davis and the Defendant, surveilled Tammy Davis's residence and then followed Kimbrough to his apartment.
- At the apartment, Johnson, armed with a knife, attacked and stabbed Kimbrough.
- Johnson ordered the Defendant to get a separate vehicle (a Blazer) and follow Kimbrough's vehicle (a Bronco), which was being driven by Michael Davis with Johnson and the wounded Kimbrough inside, to a remote rock quarry known as Bullfrog Pond.
- At the quarry, Johnson pushed Kimbrough into the water. After Johnson stated he had "lost" Kimbrough, the Defendant assisted in the search by retrieving a flashlight.
- Following Johnson's orders after the murder, the Defendant and Michael Davis drove Kimbrough's Bronco to a remote location and set it on fire to destroy evidence.
- Johnson also instructed the Defendant and Davis to remove their clothes and shoes, which Johnson then threw into a ditch.
- When initially questioned by police three days after the murder, the Defendant lied and denied any involvement.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Missouri charged the Defendant with felony murder in the second degree and kidnapping in a state trial court.
- At trial, the Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence and again at the close of all evidence, both of which the trial court overruled.
- A jury found the Defendant guilty on both counts.
- The Defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled by the trial court, which then sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment.
- The Defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, with the State of Missouri as the respondent.
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 conduct, including driving a second vehicle during the commission of a crime, lying to police, and subsequently destroying evidence under the direction of the principal actor, constitute sufficient evidence of affirmative participation to support a conviction for aiding and abetting kidnapping and felony murder?
Opinions:
Majority - James K. Prewitt
Yes, the defendant's conduct constitutes sufficient evidence of affirmative participation. A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another if, with the purpose of promoting the offense, they aid in its commission. Affirmative participation can be proven by circumstantial evidence, including presence at the scene, association with the perpetrators, and post-crime conduct. The Defendant affirmatively participated by driving the second vehicle, which was necessary for the getaway from the remote quarry. Furthermore, his actions after the crime—making false exculpatory statements to police and actively destroying evidence by burning the victim's vehicle—demonstrate a consciousness of guilt, which serves as circumstantial evidence of his participation in the underlying kidnapping.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the legal principle that accomplice liability can be established through a wide range of circumstantial evidence, including actions taken after the principal offense is complete. It clarifies that conduct like destroying evidence or lying to authorities is not merely evidence of a separate offense (e.g., obstruction of justice) but can be used to infer the defendant's purposeful participation in the original crime. This broadens the scope of evidence prosecutors can use to prove an aiding and abetting theory, particularly where the defendant's role during the actual commission of the crime was relatively passive.
