STATE OF MISSOURI v. TERRELL EUGENE PRINE

STATE OF MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. SD32940
) Filed: December 16, 2014
TERRELL EUGENE PRINE, )
)
Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY
Honorable David B. Mouton, Circuit Judge
AFFIRMED
Terrell Eugene Prine (“Prine”),1 appeals his conviction of the class A felony of
first-degree robbery, pursuant to section 569.020; and the unclassified felony of armed criminal
action, pursuant to section 571.015.2 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
1
In the record, Prine is sometimes referred to as “Bud.”
2
All references to statutes are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.
Facts and Procedural Background
Prine does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. This
Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Perry, 275 S.W.3d
237, 242 (Mo. banc 2009). We accept as true all facts and inferences favorable to the verdict,
and we disregard evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Oliver, 293 S.W.3d 437, 444
(Mo. banc 2009). In light of these principles, the following evidence was adduced at trial.
On the evening of January 14, 2012, Prine, intoxicated, had his girlfriend drive him to the
home of Bradley Clark (“Clark”) to collect fifteen dollars that Clark owed Prine. When Clark
refused to pay Prine because Clark only had a fifty dollar bill, Prine became angry and told Clark
he was going out to his girlfriend’s car to retrieve his gun. Prine returned to Clark’s home with
his gun (wearing gloves), kicked in the front door, took two steps inside, and fired the gun. Prine
took the fifty dollars from Clark, then threatened to kill a second man in the house, Gary
Mitchell (“Mitchell”), unless Mitchell gave Prine his money. Prine left Clark’s house in his
girlfriend’s car after taking about two hundred dollars from Mitchell, but was later apprehended
and arrested.3
Police found a bullet hole in Clark’s home during a search, found a glove worn by Prine
at the time of the shooting, retrieved the gun fired by Prine, as well as the shell casing from the
bullet Prine fired.
On April 24, 2012, a special prosecutor was appointed for the State due to a conflict of
interest within the office of the Jasper County Prosecuting Attorney.
3
Clark was a long-time family friend and had known Prine since he was a baby. Mitchell and Prine were cousins;
Mitchell was also related to Clark.
2
A jury trial was held on June 18, 2013. At the close of all the evidence, an instruction
conference was held in which Prine’s counsel offered Instruction 5A,4 a lesser-included-offense
instruction for second-degree robbery. When the trial court offered counsel for Prine an
opportunity to make a record regarding the instruction, the following transpired:
[PRINE’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Judge. I believe there’s evidence
of intoxication of Mr. Clark, and I believe Mr. Mitchell. Both testified that Mr.
Prine was not himself, that he was intoxicated, under the influence. I would ask
that the Court offer Instruction - I have marked it as 5A, Judge, you’re marking it
as A, is that right[?]
BY THE COURT: Yes. [STATE], any record you wish to
make[?]
[STATE]: Yes. Your Honor, the only difference between what
the defense is submitting in its proposed #A and robbery first that is in Instruction
No. 5, which is properly given by the Court, they’re attempting to negate, as I
understand, the elements of - the intent element of the crime on purpose, that he
was intoxicated therefore purposely did this.
If you recall the testimony[,] the defense is I just didn’t do it.
Period. In other words, he didn’t do the robbery, number one. So the only
difference between robbery first and robbery second is paragraph four in the two
instructions. Robbery first requires the additional element of using - the MAI
would say you can charge it by doing deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in
the commission of the crime.
4
INSTRUCTION NO. [5]A
As to Count I, if you do not find the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree, you
must consider whether he is guilty of robbery in the second degree.
As to Count I, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that on or about the 14th day of January, 2012, in the County of Jasper, State of
Missouri, the defendant took $50.00 in cash from Brad Clark, which was property owned by Brad
Clark, and
Second, that defendant did so for the purpose of withholding it from the owner
permanently, and
Third, that defendant in doing so threated [sic] the immediate use of physical force on or
against Brad Clark for the purpose of preventing resistance to taking of the property, then you will
find the defendant guilty under Count I of robbery in the second degree.
However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each
and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense.
3
The specific intent for both of those is purposely, Judge, so I don’t
think you go down to a second-degree robbery and eliminate the use of a weapon
in the commission of a crime just because you’re drunk. Plus the defendant is
saying I just didn’t do this anyway. I don’t know how you get - it seems like a
contradictory argument. If you believe I did it then negate the elements of
robbery by - down to second-degree robbery, forget about the gun, and let me off
with a second-degree because I was drunk. It’s the same standard for both.
BY THE COURT: I agree. As I indicated in chambers, there is, I
don’t think, any evidence at all in the case, much less substantial evidence to
support the giving of a second degree robbery instruction. I don’t believe
anybody gives a version that he was there and robbed Brad Clark but did so
without the use of a gun or a dangerous instrument. And so for all of those
reasons I am refusing the proffered instruction, which I have marked as #A,
323.04, and that is the only instruction - that’s the only instruction offered by the
defense.
The jury found Prine guilty of robbery in the first degree and armed criminal action. The
jury recommended Prine be sentenced to ten years in the Missouri Department of Corrections for
the charge of robbery in the first degree, and three years in the Missouri Department of
Corrections for the charge of armed criminal action. The trial court ruled the sentences would
run consecutively after finding the recommendation of the jury was appropriate and within the
limits of the law.
On July 15, 2013, Prine filed a “Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the
Verdict, or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial” asserting that:
The trial court clearly erred and/or abused its discretion by refusing to submit
[Prine]’s jury instruction NUMBER 5A on ROBBERY IN THE SECOND
DEGREE MAI-CR 3rd 323.04. Gary Mitchell and Bradley Clark testified they
had known Mr. Prine all his life and had never before observed him [to] act the
way he did on 14 January 2012. Clark opined Prine appeared to be under the
influence of something. He stated Mr. Prine drank several alcoholic beverages in
his presence. Mr. Prine admitted to drinking alcohol that evening as well. The
Defense asserts Instruction Number 5A should have been an option for the jury
and refusing to submit same violates Mr. Prine’s rights to Due Process, Fair Trial,
a Fair and Impartial Jury under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 18(a) of the Missouri
Constitution[.]
This appeal followed.
4
In his four points on appeal, Prine contends the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to
instruct jurors as to Prine’s lesser-included-offense instruction for robbery in the second degree
because it deprived Prine of a fair trial before a properly instructed jury in that robbery in the
second degree is a lesser-included offense of the charged robbery in the first degree, and there
was a basis for the jury to acquit on the offense charged but still convict on the lesser offense;
(2) in sustaining the State’s objection to Prine’s counsel questioning Mitchell about his pending
criminal charges because Prine was prevented from exposing Mitchell’s potential bias and
prejudice; (3) assessing court costs against Prine and ordering him to pay $31,065.98 for the
special prosecutor because Prine was indigent; and (4) assessing court costs against Prine in the
amount of $31,027.50 for the costs of a special prosecutor because this amount was prohibited
by section 56.130 and not reasonable.
The issues for our determination are:
1. Did the trial court err in denying Prine’s request to instruct the jury on the lesser-
included offense of second-degree robbery?
2. Did the trial court plainly err in denying cross-examination of Mitchell regarding
his pending charges?
3. Did the trial court plainly err in assessing court costs against Prine?
Point I: Lesser-Included Instruction
Standard of Review
“This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision whether to give a requested jury
instruction under section 556.046, RSMo Supp.2002[.]” State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390, 395
(Mo. banc 2014) (footnote omitted).
5
Analysis
While this appeal was pending, our Supreme Court ruled that a trial court cannot refuse a
requested nested-lesser instruction “based solely on its view of what evidence a reasonable juror
must believe or what inferences a reasonable juror must draw.” Id. at 392.5 Thereafter, we
allowed Prine to amend his brief to also seek reversal based upon Jackson and its companion
case, State v. Pierce, 433 S.W.3d 424 (Mo. banc 2014). Having now considered Prine’s Point I
arguments, we find Jackson and Pierce inapplicable and thus deny the point.
Jackson held that “in a criminal case, the trial court cannot refuse a defendant’s request
for . . . [a] ‘nested’ lesser offense instruction based solely on its view of what evidence a
reasonable juror must believe or what inferences a reasonable juror must draw.” 433 S.W.3d at
392 (our emphasis). This requirement was reiterated in Jackson, then again in Pierce:
If the defendant requests that the jury be instructed on a lesser included offense
consisting of all but one of the elements required for the greater offense, is the
trial court allowed to refuse to give that instruction solely because it determines
that no reasonable juror could refuse to find that the differential element had been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt? The answer is no.
Id. at 402 (our emphasis).
As in Jackson, therefore, the Court holds that where the defendant
requests the trial court to instruct the jury on a ‘nested’ lesser offense, the trial
court cannot refuse to give that instruction solely because the court concludes that
the evidence is so overwhelming that all reasonable jurors must find the
differential element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pierce, 433 S.W.3d at 433 (our emphasis).
5
Second-degree robbery is a “nested” lesser-included offense of first-degree robbery because
second-degree robbery requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
took the victim’s property by force. First-degree robbery requires proof of those same elements
and proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the differential element that the victim reasonably
believed the defendant was using or threatening to use a weapon. By definition, therefore, if the
evidence in a specific case is sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find the defendant guilty of
robbery first, that evidence also must be sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find the defendant
guilty of robbery second.
Jackson, 433 S.W.3d at 404 (emphasis in original).
6
Prine sought a second-degree robbery instruction, but his sole basis was a claim that he
was intoxicated at the time of the offense. The trial court correctly agreed with the prosecutor’s
argument against that theory (i.e., “forget about the gun, and let me off with a second-degree
because I was drunk[,]” to quote the instruction conference record). “Missouri has defined all of
its criminal offenses so as to render voluntary intoxication legally irrelevant.” State v. Fanning,
939 S.W.2d 941, 947 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997). The trial court opined further that the evidence did
not support the request and “for all of those reasons” rejected the proffered instruction.
Prine cited a single, specific, legally insufficient basis for his instruction request, which
the trial court correctly rejected. Fanning, 939 S.W.2d at 947. That the trial court volunteered
further observations, now flawed in hindsight after Jackson and Pierce, does not render wrong
its ruling on Prine’s stated request; nor, did the trial court “refuse to give that instruction solely
because the court conclude[d] that the evidence [was] so overwhelming that all reasonable jurors
must find the differential element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Pierce, 433 S.W.3d at
433 (our emphasis). On the record before us, the trial court did not err in denying Prine’s
instruction request. Point I is denied.
Point II: Cross-Examination Regarding Pending Charges
Prine contends in his second point that the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s
objection in cross-examination of Mitchell concerning pending charges, and he was thus
prejudiced. Prine concedes the general rule that the subject of pending charges against a witness
is not admissible.
Generally, to preserve the issue for appeal, the proponent of evidence excluded by the
trial court must make an offer of proof. State v. Woods, 357 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Mo.App. W.D.
2012). An offer of proof is made after an unfavorable ruling, Sturma v. Sturma, 674 S.W.2d
7
626, 627 (Mo.App. E.D. 1984), and “must specifically show: (1) what the proffered evidence
would be; (2) its object and purpose; and (3) all the facts necessary to establish its relevance and
admissibility.” Calzaretta v. Willard, 391 S.W.3d 488, 493 (Mo.App. S.D. 2013).
Having reviewed the record, we see no offer of proof on this issue6 meeting the
requirements set out in Calzaretta.7 Notably, we find Prine did not offer testimony regarding
what the pending charges might have been. Further, the complained-of error was not contained
in a motion for new trial. As a result, this issue is not preserved for our review.
Nevertheless, Rule 30.208 permits this Court, in its discretion, to grant plain error review
if the requirements of a two-step analysis are satisfied. First we determine whether the
complained-of error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing a manifest injustice or
miscarriage of justice has occurred. State v. Mayes, 281 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Mo.App. S.D. 2009).
Only if the first step is satisfied do we then move to the second step to determine whether
manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice actually occurred. Id.We find no facially substantial grounds to believe that manifest injustice or a miscarriage
of justice has occurred, and therefore decline to review for plain error. Point II is denied.
Points III and IV: Court Costs
In his third and fourth points, Prine argues that the trial court plainly erred in assessing
court costs against Prine because the trial court found Prine to be indigent. Prine concedes on
appeal that this issue was not preserved, and that we therefore may only review for plain error.
6
“If an offer of proof consists of evidence which is admissible in part and inadmissible in part, the trial court is
justified in rejecting the entire offer.” State v. Broussard, 57 S.W.3d 902, 911 (Mo.App. S.D. 2001).
7
While we note that defense counsel attempted several times (unsuccessfully) to elicit testimony about this evidence
after the trial court sustained an objection to its admission (thereby drawing a formal admonishment from the trial
court), the corresponding open court colloquies and bench conference discussions in the transcript are insufficient to
preserve this issue for our consideration.
8
All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2013).
8
Finding no substantial facial grounds to believe that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of
justice has occurred, we decline to review for plain error.9 Points III and IV are denied.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., C.J./P.J. - OPINION AUTHOR
JEFFREY W. BATES, J. - Concurs
DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. - Concurs
9
The State argues that a “Bill of Costs” assessing the special prosecutor’s fee against the state of Missouri was
submitted to the Missouri Department of Corrections by the Jasper County prosecutor and the trial court, thereby
rendering this issue moot. The State suggests that this Bill of Costs is contained in “Appendix A” in the record on
appeal. However, it appears that such Bill of Costs was not included in Appendix A or elsewhere in the record on
appeal; therefore, we may not consider it.
9