State v. Hill
884 S.W.2d 69, 1994 WL 394093, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1245 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant can be found guilty of an offense under a theory of accomplice liability if their conduct before, during, and after the crime demonstrates they acted with the purpose of promoting or furthering the commission of that offense, even if they did not personally commit every element of the crime.
Facts:
- On the evening of January 9, 1992, Tyrone Davis (the victim) and Stephen Hill, the Defendant's brother, had a heated argument over money Stephen owed Davis.
- Later that evening, Defendant James A. Hill and his brother Stephen went to Dale Berry's house looking for Davis.
- Around 11:00 p.m., the Hill brothers returned to Berry's house, both armed with guns; Stephen Hill carried a pistol and a rifle, while Defendant had a .22 pistol in his jacket.
- At approximately 1:00 a.m. on January 10, Defendant and his brother went to the house where Davis was staying.
- Witnesses observed Defendant arguing with Davis on the front porch while Stephen Hill hid around the corner of the house.
- As the argument continued, Stephen Hill came around the corner and shot Davis multiple times.
- Davis fell back into the house and subsequently died from his wounds.
- After the shooting, witnesses saw both Defendant and Stephen Hill run from the scene together.
Procedural Posture:
- James A. Hill (Defendant) was charged with murder in a Missouri trial court.
- Following a jury trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict for second-degree murder.
- The trial court sentenced the Defendant to thirty years' imprisonment.
- The Defendant appealed his conviction to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, arguing insufficiency of the evidence and instructional error.
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 there sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of second-degree murder on a theory of accomplice liability where the evidence shows he was present at the scene, argued with the victim to lure him outside, and fled with the shooter, even if the evidence does not show he personally fired a weapon?
Opinions:
Majority - Shrum, J.
Yes. The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for second-degree murder under an accomplice liability theory. A person who intentionally and knowingly aids or encourages the commission of a crime is guilty of that offense. A defendant's participation can be inferred from their presence at the scene, companionship with the other actor, conduct before and after the offense, and flight from the scene. Here, the Defendant and his armed brother searched for the victim hours after the brother's argument with the victim. The Defendant was seen arguing with the victim on the porch just before the shooting, which a jury could reasonably infer was a tactic to lure the victim into a vulnerable position for Stephen Hill to ambush him. The Defendant's flight from the scene with his brother further supports the inference of a common purpose. This circumstantial evidence is sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that the Defendant acted with the purpose of promoting or furthering the murder committed by his brother.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the application of accomplice liability principles, emphasizing that a defendant's mental state and purpose can be proven entirely through circumstantial evidence. It reinforces that direct proof of an agreement to commit a crime is not required; a common purpose can be inferred from a course of conduct. The decision clarifies that actions like searching for the victim, luring them into a dangerous situation, being present during the crime, and fleeing with the principal actor are collectively sufficient to establish criminal liability as an accomplice. This provides a strong precedent for prosecutors building cases against secondary participants who play a crucial but non-primary role in committing an offense.
