State v. Kruger
926 S.W.2d 486, 1996 WL 360650, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1162 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury constitutes 'serious physical injury' for first-degree assault if it creates a substantial risk of death, causes serious disfigurement, or results in protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel require allegations of specific facts, not conclusions, that are not conclusively refuted by the record and caused prejudice to the defendant, otherwise an evidentiary hearing is not warranted.
Facts:
- Teri McNamee and Paul Leslie Kruger were married for four years and had a daughter.
- In August 1993, McNamee informed Kruger that she wanted a divorce and subsequently moved with their daughter into her mother’s home, with Kruger retaining supervised visitation.
- On Tuesday, August 24, 1993, McNamee rejected Kruger’s attempt to reconcile and obtained a restraining order against him.
- Early Saturday morning, August 28, 1993, McNamee went to a Schnuck’s grocery store to make a copy of her restraining order.
- As McNamee was parking, Kruger approached her vehicle, produced a semi-automatic .380 caliber pistol, pointed it at her, and fired.
- Kruger shot McNamee in the left side of her jaw and elbow, and twice in her back.
- McNamee was taken to the hospital, where she was treated and hospitalized for five days before being released.
- Kruger was arrested later that morning and, after waiving his Miranda rights, confessed to the shooting.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Leslie Kruger was convicted of first degree assault and armed criminal action in the trial court.
- The trial court sentenced Kruger to twenty-five years for first degree assault and a consecutive ten-year term for armed criminal action.
- Kruger filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the motion court.
- Kruger (defendant) appealed his convictions and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Is there sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim suffered 'serious physical injury' as defined by Missouri law for a conviction of first-degree assault? 2. Did the trial court clearly err in denying the defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress statements, move for a change of venue, or request a second psychological examination?
Opinions:
Majority - Pudlowski, Presiding Judge
Yes, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Teri McNamee suffered 'serious physical injury,' and no, the trial court did not clearly err in denying Kruger’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court found that McNamee's injuries met all three prongs of the 'serious physical injury' definition under § 565.002(6) RSMo. 1994. First, the shots to her face and back posed a substantial risk of death, as confirmed by the trauma surgeon, and her survival did not negate this risk. Second, McNamee suffered serious disfigurement, evidenced by scars on her face, chin, elbow, and back, and the necessity of dental work (a new tooth, caps, and crowns) where a bullet passed through her face. Third, she experienced protracted loss or impairment of function, as bullets remaining in her back injured the fifth lumbar nerve, causing numbness and weakness in her left leg and requiring a temporary brace. This directly impaired her leg's function, distinguishing it from a mere ache. Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court found that Kruger failed to meet the requirements for an evidentiary hearing set forth in State v. Driver. His claim that counsel should have moved to suppress his confession was meritless because his statements were voluntary after a Miranda waiver, and his defense of mental disease conceded the assault. His claim regarding counsel's failure to request a change of venue was unfounded because voir dire showed no prejudice from pretrial publicity. Finally, his contention that counsel should have requested a second psychiatric examination lacked specific factual allegations about what a new examination would have revealed, rendering it speculative and insufficient to warrant relief.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarification on what constitutes 'serious physical injury' under Missouri law for first-degree assault, demonstrating that an injury can meet multiple criteria simultaneously (risk of death, disfigurement, and protracted impairment). It emphasizes that a victim's survival does not negate the initial life-threatening nature of an injury. Furthermore, the decision reinforces the strict standards for obtaining an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel claims, requiring concrete facts and demonstrated prejudice rather than speculative allegations or challenges to meritless actions.
