State v. Bruce

677 S.W.3d 867

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Ira S. BRUCE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. SD 37363

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, In Division.

Filed: September 6, 2023

Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied September 26, 2023

Application for Transfer Denied November 21, 2023

Attorney for Appellant – Jedd C. Schneider of Columbia, MO.

Attorney for Respondent – Eric S. Schmitt (Attorney General), Julia E. Rives of Jefferson City, MO.

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, J.

Ira S. Bruce ("Mr. Bruce") appeals the trial court's judgment convicting him of assault in the first degree under section 565.050.1.¹ He raises three separate points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in overruling Mr. Bruce's motions for judgment of acquittal because the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by denying Mr. Bruce's request for a mistrial after the prosecutor inquired of a witness about Mr. Bruce's state of mind; and (3) the trial court plainly erred in failing to quash the jury pool or declare a mistrial during voir dire because a venireperson's "criminal characterization of Mr. Bruce was sufficiently inflammatory to bias his fellow venirepersons against Mr. Bruce[.]" We reject all points and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Factual Background and Procedural History

On June 29, 2018, M.P. ("Victim") was working at Hillenburg Service Station in Pleasant Hope. Victim was changing the tires on a boat trailer sometime in the afternoon when he noticed a truck driven by Mr. Bruce head north after "flipping a U-ey" one to two blocks away. The truck's motor was racing at full RPM, the tires were smoking, and Mr. Bruce "had run the tire off" his right front rim and was driving on the bare rim as he approached the service station. The truck approached the service station from the south heading north going "probably 30, 40 miles an hour", proceeded to make a 90-degree turn coming up the highway, clipped the boat, and crashed into the service station's buildings. Victim saw Mr. Bruce staring at him as Victim heard the truck's engine race. Mr. Bruce pointed the truck towards Victim, but Victim got out of the way.

The local chief of police was in his car parked by the pumps at the service station. The police chief "made contact" with Mr. Bruce's truck before the truck crashed into the buildings with the push bumper of his patrol car. The truck veered left and became wedged between the buildings. Mr. Bruce jumped out of the truck, ran towards Victim, and said, "I'm going to kill you, mother-----" and accused Victim of raping his family. When Victim saw Mr. Bruce prepare to swing at him, Victim ducked and stuck his head between Mr. Bruce's knees and wrapped his arms around Mr. Bruce's legs so Mr. Bruce could not hit Victim in the face. Mr. Bruce kept swinging, hitting Victim "[t]oward the back" and on his head. The police chief exited his car and got between Mr. Bruce and Victim and with his sidearm, advised Mr. Bruce to get on his knees and put his hands on top of his head, and to "cease and desist." Mr. Bruce did not stop until the police chief gave him three or four more commands and pointed his service weapon at Mr. Bruce. As the police chief handcuffed him, Mr. Bruce remarked, once again, "I'm going to kill you, motherf-----." Mr. Bruce also said, "This ain't over yet. I'm going to fu----- kill you."

The State charged Mr. Bruce with assault in the first degree. The case was tried before a jury. Mr. Bruce filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence and again at the close of all the evidence, arguing the State presented insufficient evidence that he intended to "run over" Victim. The trial court denied both motions, and the jury found Mr. Bruce guilty of assault in the first degree. Mr. Bruce timely filed his motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The trial court entered judgment convicting Mr. Bruce of assault in the first degree and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. This appeal timely followed.

Points on Appeal

Point I: There was Sufficient Evidence that Mr. Bruce Intended to Cause Serious Physical Injury to Victim.

Standard of Review

"When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, this Court must determine whether sufficient evidence permits a reasonable juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Stewart , 560 S.W.3d 531, 533 (Mo. banc 2018) (internal quotations omitted). "The evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding any evidence and inferences contrary to the verdict." Id.

State v. Hollowell , 643 S.W.3d 329, 341 (Mo. banc 2022).

This Court will affirm a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal if, "at the close of evidence, there was sufficient evidence from which reasonable persons could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense." State v. Castoe , 357 S.W.3d 305, 308 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012). "[G]reat deference is given to the trier of fact, and an appellate court will not weigh the evidence anew." State v. Boyd , 659 S.W.3d 914, 925 (Mo. banc 2023) (quoting State v. Alexander , 505 S.W.3d 384, 393 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) ).

Analysis

In point I, Mr. Bruce asserts the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause Victim serious bodily injury as is required for a charge of assault in the first degree. We disagree.

"A person commits the offense of assault in the first degree if he or she attempts to kill or knowingly causes or attempts to cause serious physical injury to another person." Section 565.050.1. Attempt crimes require two elements: "(1) defendant has the purpose to commit the underlying offense, and (2) the doing of an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense."

State v. Jones , 519 S.W.3d 818, 823 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (quoting State v. Ransburg , 504 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 2016) ). "A person ‘acts purposely’, or with purpose, with respect to his or her conduct or to a result thereof when it is his or her conscious object to engage in that conduct or to cause that result." Section 562.016.2.

A conviction for assault in the first degree requires evidence of a specific intent to cause serious physical injury. Castoe , 357 S.W.3d at 308. Intent is rarely proven by direct evidence, and the trier of fact can infer intent circumstantially. State v. Lammers , 479 S.W.3d 624, 633 (Mo. banc 2016) ; Castoe , 357 S.W.3d at 308. "A jury may determine a defendant's mental state from the defendant's conduct before the act, from the act itself, and from the defendant's subsequent conduct." Jones , 519 S.W.3d at 823.

In this case, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer Mr. Bruce specifically intended to cause serious physical injury to Victim. In his briefing, Mr. Bruce does not deny he hit Victim multiple times or any of the sequence of events in question when he went to the service station. Instead, he argues the State presented insufficient evidence of his specific intent to "purposefully" seriously injure Victim as opposed to him only knowing his conduct was certain to cause harm. The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, however, was that Mr. Bruce was driving so forcefully towards the service station that the truck's motor was racing at full RPM, the tires were smoking, Mr. Bruce "had run the tire off" his right front rim, and he was driving on the bare rim as he approached the service station. The truck approached the service station at "probably 30, 40 miles an hour", made a 90-degree turn as it came up the highway, clipped the boat, and crashed into two buildings after making contact with the police car. Victim testified that Mr. Bruce was staring right at him as the truck charged forward. Mr. Bruce only stopped driving his truck after it became wedged between two buildings, then jumped out of the truck, ran towards Victim, and said, "I'm going to kill you, mother-----[.]" Mr. Bruce kept swinging as Victim attempted to protect himself. After Mr. Bruce finally stopped his assault on Victim, he said, "This ain't over yet. I'm going to fu----- kill you."

Mr. Bruce's accusations toward Victim of raping his family could have also provided the jury with a basis for concluding Mr. Bruce was motivated to attempt to kill or cause serious physical injury to Victim. Mr. Bruce continued to assault Victim even as the police chief told him to stop at gunpoint. Both Victim and the arresting officer confirmed Mr. Bruce repeatedly said, "I'm going to kill you, motherf-----" during the attack and said it again after being arrested. A reasonable juror could rely on all of these factual events to conclude Mr. Bruce rushed to Victim's place of work for the specific purpose of seriously harming Victim. See State v. Hall , 561 S.W.3d 449, 451 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (finding sufficient evidence to support a conviction for assault in the first degree when the defendant drove his truck "really fast" and swerved the truck towards the victim); see also State v. Greer , 348 S.W.3d 149, 157 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (holding there was sufficient evidence to affirm a conviction for assault in the first degree when a defendant wielded a shank and yelled " ‘you all’ would have to kill or be killed"); State v. Smith , 242 S.W.3d 735, 738-39 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (concluding there was sufficient evidence to infer a defendant attempted to cause physical injury with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument when he chased a victim with a truck).

Mr. Bruce also argues his truck was "significantly impaired[,]" and therefore the jury could not conclude he specifically directed his truck towards Victim. He further insists, despite eye witness testimony to the contrary, that no witness had a "definitively clear vantage point" to see the truck's trajectory. By making these arguments, Mr. Bruce asks this Court to reweigh the evidence in his favor, which we cannot do....