State of Missouri v. Gregory Jimerson

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
820 S.W.2d 500 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The offense of offering violence to a corrections officer under Missouri Statute § 217.385 is a strict liability crime. A conviction does not require the prosecution to prove that the defendant possessed a culpable mental state, such as acting intentionally or willfully.

Facts:

On April 9, 1988, inmate Gregory Jimerson requested to see the prison doctor.
After seeing the doctor leave his housing area, Jimerson believed prison officers had ignored his request.
Corrections officer Walter Raby attempted to escort Jimerson from the recreation yard back to his cell, but Jimerson initially refused to be handcuffed.
Two other officers, Brian Compton and Tony Lander, persuaded Jimerson to be handcuffed and escorted him back.
While climbing the stairs to the second tier of the housing unit, Jimerson, who was handcuffed, turned and kicked Officer Lander in the groin.
When Officer Lander asked why he had kicked him, Jimerson replied, “I’ll see the doctor now, won’t I?”

Procedural Posture:

Gregory Jimerson was tried by a jury in the trial court for offering violence to a corrections officer.
The jury convicted Jimerson of the charge.
The trial court sentenced Jimerson as a prior and persistent offender to three years in prison.
Jimerson filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied Jimerson's motion.
Jimerson appealed both his conviction and the denial of his post-conviction motion to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

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 conviction for offering violence to a corrections officer under Missouri Statute § 217.385 require the state to prove a culpable mental state?

Opinions:

Majority - Nugent, Senior Judge

No. A conviction for offering violence to a corrections officer under § 217.385 does not require a finding of a culpable mental state. While acknowledging the traditional common law principle that criminal liability requires intent, as articulated in Morissette v. United States, the court holds that it is bound by its own recent precedent establishing this offense as one of strict liability. The court reasons that the legislative intent behind the statute is to maintain security in correctional institutions, where even an unintentional act of violence could escalate into a riot. The court notes that until the Missouri Supreme Court rules otherwise, it will continue to follow its precedent that a culpable mental state is not an element of the offense.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies a line of Missouri appellate cases treating violence against a corrections officer as a strict liability offense, diverging from the foundational common law principle of mens rea (guilty mind). By creating this exception, the court prioritizes institutional security over the traditional requirement of proving a defendant's criminal intent. The opinion signals an ongoing tension in Missouri law and implicitly invites review by the Missouri Supreme Court to resolve whether due process requires a culpable mental state for such a serious offense. This ruling simplifies prosecutions for this specific crime but raises significant questions about fairness and the scope of strict liability in criminal law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State of Missouri v. Gregory Jimerson (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"