jeffrey weinhaus lf vol ii
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
1/79
IN
THE
MISSOURI
COURT
OF APPEALS
EASTERN
DISTRICT
STATE
OF
MISSOURI.
Respondent,
vs
No
ED100807
JEFFREY R. WEINHAUS,
Appellant.
LEGAL
FILE
Volume
II
AMY M. BARTHOLOW
Office of
State
Public Defender
10 00 W. Nifong
Boulevard, Bldg.
7,
Ste. 100
Columbia, Missouri
65203
573 882-9855
Attorney for
Appellant
SHAUN
MACKELPRANG
Office
of
the
Attorney
General
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson
City,
Missouri 651 2
573
751-3321
Attorney
for
Respondent
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
2/79
INDEX
VOLUME
Page s
R
NK
LIN
COUNTY
SE
NO 12AB CR 24 9 O1:
DOCKET
SHEETS
1 1 9
INDICTMENT
20 22
SUBSTITUTE INFORMATION
IN LIEU
OF INDICTMENT
23-25
DEFENDANTS
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY
26-29
DEFENDANTS
MOTION
FOR
BILL OF
PARTICULARS
30-32
PRO
SE
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
33 35
DEFENDANTS MOTION
TO QUASH
INDICTMENT
36-48
DEFENDANTS MOTION
TO
SEVER
THE CHARGES
49 52
DEFENDANTS MOTION
IN LIMINE
/
MOTION
TO
EXCLUDE
53 57
DEFENDANTS
VERIFIED
ANNOUNCEMENT
OF
READY AND
MOTION
FOR
SPEEDY TRIAL
8 59
DEFENDANTS
SECOND
MOTION
TO SEVER
OFFENSES
60 65
DEFENDANTS
AMENDED
SECOND
MOTION
TO
SEVER
OFFENSES
66 71
DEFENDANTS MOTION
TO
DISMISS
THE
CHARGE OF TAMPERING
WITH
JUDICIAL OFFICER
FOR
DEFECT
IN THE INSTITUTION
OF THE
PROSECUTION
72-106
DEFENDANTS
AMENDED
MOTION
TO DISMISS
THE
CHARGE
OF
TAMPERING
WITH
JUDICIAL
OFFICER FOR
DEFECT IN
THE
INSTITUTION OF
THE
PROSECUTION
1 7 14
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
3/79
DEFENDANTS
SECOND
MOTION
IN
CIMINE
141 143
STATES
MOTION
iN
LIM1NE
144
DEFENDANTS
OPPOSITION
TO
STATES
MOTION IN
LIMINE
145 147
STATES
MOTION
IN LIMINE
2
148
DEFENDANTS
OPPOSITION TO STATES
SECOND
MOTION
IN
LIMINE
149 15
VOLUME
Ii
DEFENDANTS
MOTION
FOR
JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL
15
1 152
DEFENDANTS
SECOND MOTION
FOR
JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL
153 156
DEFENDANTS
SUPPLEMENTAL
SUGGESTIONS
OF
LAW
IN
SUPPORT
OF
EACH OF HIS ORIGINAL RENEWED
SECOND
MOTIONS
FOR
JUDGMENT
OF
ACQUITTAL
157 162
JURY
INSTRUCTIONS
163 192
JURYS QUESTIONS
193 194
VERDICTS
195 2
SENTENCING
VERDICTS
201 204
DEFENDANTS
MOTION
FOR NEW TRIAL
2 5 211
JUDGMENT
212 214
NOTICE OF
APPEAL
2 15 222
CLERKS
CERTIFICATION
223 225
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
226
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
4/79
F
IL
IN
IH
I
R U
II
O
t
RI
R
IRA
NK
I
IN
C
0CN
I
2
to
JU
D
I I
L
CIRCF
f
S1A
FI,
lb
MIS
SOU
RI
FAN
KL
jh bi
S FATE
OF MIS
SOU
RI.
ase
No . 2.
\B-C
R0
240Q
JEFFREy
R.
W
HNH
AL
S,
De
fend
ant.
1
EF
END
NT
S
MO ION FO
R
JUD
CM
EJT
O
A
CQI
1T
[AL
om
es
n
o
D
elhnd
ant
Je
ffre
y
R.
\
\einh
aus. h coun
sel
Il
uch A.
East
wood and
C
hrist
ophe
r
M. C
omb
s,
and
sta
tes
as his R
ule
2
7.07 M
oti
on
for Ju
dgm
ent o
f
A
cqu
ittal:
h
t te
h s fail
ed to m
ake
a
subm
issi
ble
case
fbr
all
of
the
elem
ent
s
hr
each otits
char
ges.
arid
th
eref
ore
the
Cou
rt
mu
s:
ent
er a judg
men
t of
a
cqui
ttal.
1
P
osse
ssion Of Con
trol
led
Su
bstan
ce
Ex
cep
t
35 Gr
ams Or Less O
f M
ariju
ana,
a
class
C
Fe
lony
,
RSMo
195.
202:
2.
la
mpe
ring
W
ith
Jud
icial
OfTicer,
a
class
C
F
elon
y.
RSM
o
.5o5
.084
;
3.
P
osse
ssio
n
OfU
p
To
35
Grar
n
Mari
juan
a,
a
C
lass
A
Mi
sdem
ean
or,
RSMo:
195,202:
4.
A
ssaul
tiAn
ernp
t
A
ssau
lt-
1
1G.
C
orr
Off, L
mrg
nc
Prsiml
Hwy
Wkr, t
:j j
y
W
rkr
.Cbl
e
Wr
kr
Or
P P O
ffer
1st D
egr,
a Cl
ass
A Fe
lon ,
R
SMo
565
.081
;
5.
A
rme
d
Crim
ina
l
A
ctio
n,
Felo
n Un
clas
sifie
d.
RSMo.
571.0 15:
6. Assault.Attempt
Ass
ault
11
0 o
rr
OfL
E
rnrgn
c
Pr
snnl
lw
Wkr
n
itv
\Vrk
r.CI
Ie
rkr Or P P
O
iler 1st
De
er, a
\
el
on\,
RNMo
56
U8
1
Arm
ed
C
rim
inat
\
ctio
n,
I
ek
ny Un
class
ified
,
RSM
o
01
8
Re
sistin
g
inte
rferi
ng
With
Arr
est For
A
F
elons
,
a
C
lass I)
Fe
lon\.
RS
Mo
:
75
150:
W
HE
REF
OR
E
i efe
ndan
t
Jeitie
R.
Wei
nhai
s pr
d\s ih
s ou
rt ente
r a
Ji.
DG\
1LN
I O
f
A
CQ
f II I
Al.
on
all
cou
nts, and
for suc
h ethe
r reli
ef
as is meet
iust
and
rea
son
able
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
5/79
Respectfully
Submitted.
Aitorneis
for
Defendani
iq
oL
Hugh
A.
Lastwood, Mill. 62058
7777
Bonhomine
A
enue.
Suite
160
St.
Louis.
Missouri 631 151Q41
heastwood
eastvoodlawstl corn
Tax
31417274473
Tel
314
727 5
Cell
314 8092343
s
cito
her
ionths
Christopher
M.
Combs. MBF
ui65512
4242 Laclede Ave., Unit
104
St.
Louis
MO
63108
combschrisl
grnail.con]
leT:
314
578 1465
Fax 314
531
1069
CFR Ill IC.\I
L
OF
SNRVICF
he
undersigned certifies
that
on
2 l s hc
served
this
document
on:
Robert
F. Parks, Ii
Franklin
County
Prosecuting
Attorne
S.
Church
St..
Room
204
Lnion, MO 63084
The
method s
of service:
by hand
cieii\
cry
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
6/79
ttii:
CIRUL
II
. )t
R
OR
lR.\\Kl
INC
Ut
N
ith
JI
DICL\l
IRCt
II
sI
UI
01
1ISSOt
RI
StAll
OFMISSOL RI,
)
)
Case
No .
12A8-CR02409-OI
JEFFREY
R.
WFINI
tAt
Defendant.
DEFENDANTS SECONI
MOTION
FOR Jfl GMEN1
OF . CQflTTA1
Comes now
Defendant
Jeffrey R.
Weinhaus.
by counsel
lugh
A.
Eastwood
and
Christopher
M.
Combs. and
states a his
second
motion
for
judgment of acquittal.
as
a
matter
of
law
pursuant to
Rule
27.07 c):
The
slate originally
brought
A
charge.. the Court
acquitted the Defendant
o/2
chargec
at
the clo.se
of
State v evidence, upon
De/knclani motion. The issue he ore
ihe
wart
here
i s
ii
heiher
the
2
drug
eomwtions /loni
controlled substance
morphine
tabletci
and
,niAdemeanor
marijuana
possession
should also
be subjeci
it..
acquittal as
a
mailer
at
law.
I.
Controlled
substance, no
active or
constructive
possession. Ihe
idence
shoved
that
Defendant
lived
in
the
house
with his
then
wife
and
teenage
son.
Ihe one
and
one-half
morphine
tablets were
found inside
a Camel
brand
snuff
box
in
a common
area
of the
basement
in
a
container
near
a
family
computer.
he
common area na.
not
locked
off
or
others
ise
secured
from
other
common areas
ol
the
house.
he
es
ident: also
hnsed
that
the teenage
sonc
bedroom
as
a4iacent
the common
area. Common
sense and
esperience
indicate
that teenage
boys
sometimes
do
nauahty
things in
the basements of
family
homeswhether
with izirls. or
with alcohol
and drugs.
here
was
no
other
esidence
that
l elendant
constructnely possessed
the
morphine
tablets,
let done
esen
knew
of
their
eitence.
I
her:
is no
et
idence that
he
wds es
er pnmiinat to
the
basement
7
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
7/79
on
th
e day of
the
sear
ch :
he
spo
ke
to
the
troo
pers
ou ts
ide
the
ho
me.
U
h
at he
m
ade a
hom
e
m
o
te
in
the
base
men
t
a
fen days
b
efor
e
is
irrele
an
t.
Re
ce nt a
utho
rity
del
:ats
c
onstr
ucti
e
poss
essio
n o
f
t
he
m
orp
hin e
, and
af li
rms
tha
t
hsso
un
ca
nno
t
supp
ort
L)
efen
dant
s
co
n
icti
on
fo
r
p
osse
ssion
of
the
m
orph
ine
tab le
ts.
St
ate
v
oli t
te No
. SD
3146
9 1 eb.
25.2
013
D
efe
ndan
t
h
ad sma
ll am o
un t
o
f
ma
rijua
na
in
h
is b ed
room
.
bu
t
a
cqui
tted o
t
po
sses
sion
of
dulTel b
ag o nt
ini n
g
t
hree
b
ricks
of m
ariju
ana
.
ihi
h
sas
fo
und
in
ga ra
ge of jo
intly
-con
tro ll
ed
pr
em i
ses):
c
e a
lso
St
ate
v
Ilend
rix, S.W
.3d
9.83 Mo
.Ap p
.20O
2) D
efe
ndan
t
d
espi
te
hai
ing a
crac
k
p
ipe
on her
per
son. acq
uitte
d
o
f tra
ffick
ing
cha
rge
f
or
37
roc
ks o
f coca
ine
ba
se
hidd
en
a
sec
ond b ed
room
of he
r ho
me
i
n
s
hich she
ias a
co-h
abit
an t):
St
ate
lin
t
Dl
S
iS .3
d
59.
63
M
oSp
p.20
00
De
knd
ant kn
es
o
f me
th
in
kit
chen iceb
ox h
ut
th
at
kn o
l
edge
d
id
not
in
dica
te co
ntro
l
gite
iceb
ox s s
in co
mm
on area of
i
oint
ly
co
ntro
lled
prem
ises
).
2.
Marijuana,
no active
or
constructive
possession .
Sgt. Folsom said based on his
tr
ainin
g
th
at
h
e
sm
elle
d m
arij
uana
o
n
De
fen d
ant
s per
son. an
d t
ha t De
fend
ant
ap
pear
ed
und
er
th
e in
fluen
ce
of
m
ariju
ana.
But
.
th
ere s
n
o mar
ijuan
a
on hi
s
pers
on .
Furth
er .
th
e troo
pe rs se
ized se
aled
ma ri
juan
a
in t
he base
men
t,
but
not
a
pip
e.
b
ong
.
or
o
ther f
orm
o
f
dru
g-de
liver
y d
ci
ice
for the m ar
ijua
na . l
i n
if Sg
t Fols
oni is c
orr ec
t
t
ha t
l
)efen
dan
t
s u
nder
t
he
inf l
uenc
e, th
at
fa
ct does not
prow
up
possessio n.
for th e same
re sons
d
escri
bed
as to t
he m
orph
ine
Sec P
etti
te;
liend
rix: lie
u.
urth
er, De
fend
an t ai
tem p
ted in
cio
ss exa
min
ation
of
S
gt.
S
mi t
h
to
i
ntro
duce hi
s
po
lice
r
epor
t
abo
ut
a tex
t nle age
re
late
d t
c
e
inha
us
the
Cou
rt
su
stain
ed
a
n
ob
jecti
on by
the
Sta
te.
ii
h
ich Defe
nda
nt
ar
gues
s p
reju
dic ia
l
e
rror
req u
iring
a
tria
l).
Iher
e s
s ci
ide
nce
in
a
poli
ce repo
rt iiritw
n bs
S
gt.
P
.L . Smi
th t
ha t
th
ere is
as
a
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
8/79
text
lrom
a
c
\\
einhaus
i
Defendants
on to
Defendant concernin
a eed
plant.
Common
sense
and
expericn
e
indicate that
eed
plant i
a
street
name man uana
Sat.
Smith ne
en
passed this nflrmatiun
n
tu Sat.
isnln
on p
\
leniens.
hJt
le\t
messace
coes
to
Defendant
lack
cult
tar possession
at
the
marijuana
taunu
m
his
basement.
and
counsel further against
the
fact of Defendants
possession.
\k I IERLI OR Defendant
.Jeffre
R.
\\einhaus
pra
s this
Court set
aside
the
jury erdict
of guilt
and enter
a
directed
verdict
for judgment of
acquittal
on
each the
Controlled
Substance possession feIon conviction, and
2)
Marijuana
possession
m
isdeineanor
cons iction.
a nd fo r
such
other relief
as
is
meet,
ust and
reasonable.
Respectfu1I
submitted.
\ttornes for
Defendant
s flugh J. J2astiiood
lugh
A.
Eastvood.
MB :
a
62058
7777
Bonhomme Avenue.
Suite
16i
St.
Louis
Missouri
63
1051941
heastwood(fi
cast\ oodlastI.com
Fax
(314)7274473
id
(314)7273533
Cell
(314)
809 2343
j,istoIe,
M Combs
Christopher
M.
Combs. MB
ff655
2
1242
Laclede \e
ni
104
St
I
outs, MO
63108
eomhschnis
a gmai
l eom
Tel.
578
465
lax.
H4S31
1069
Cl
RI l l
All UI
SI
R\
IC
he
undersigned
eerti
fle
that
on
U
9
20
3
the
sen
ed
tht
is
da
ument
Robert I..
Parks. II
rank
in
County
Prosee
u ii na \ttorre\
5 5,
Church St..
Room
204
fliOfl, \1O
63084
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
9/79
ljj h aspsoo
he
method s
ol
sen 1w:
Missouri ourts c-filing system
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
10/79
l\ ilL CIRCI
C01
R
FOR FR\\KI
1\
O
\ V
Uth
DICI\l
iRC
\T[
01
\lISSOL
RI
S
F.\
FL 1 \IISSOCRI.
Cae
\
\ 13-C
RU
WO-
JEFFREY
R \VIT\J
lA
S.
Defendant.
jJEFEND:NTS
SI
PP1J:MENTL.
SUc ;ESIIONS
01
1W
IN
SE
IPORT
OF
EACh 01
IllS
ORIGlNAl.
RENE EJ SF ONI MOTIONS
FOR
Ji DCMFNT
OF
\ QIITI\I .
Comes
no
Dehndant
Jeffi
R.
\\einhaus.
b\ coum,eI Iueh
\.
ast\\
oud and
Christopher
VI. Combs. and
stales as
his supplemental sugestions
of
Ia\\ in support of
each
of
his
original. rene
ed
and second
motions
for
judgment of
acquittaL
timeI
filed
as a matter
of
lass
pursuant
to
Rule 7M7 c :
Procedural
Posture
Fhe
State
originally
brought
eight charges.
he Court
acquitted Defendant
of
t\so
charges
at
the
close
of States
evidence,
upon Delndants
original motion for
judgment
of
acquittal.
Defendant
reness
ed his
mot an
at
the close of
Defendant
s es idence
Fhe
jury
convicted
on
ffiur
outs
and
found
ot
m i
lt\
on
attempted
assault and
armed
ci
iminal
action
as
to Cpl. Mertens.
Post
trial,
Defendant
timeR
t
led
a
second
motion
for udgment
of
acqLnttal
sso issues
are
iI \\
beflre
the
Court:
I
Whether
the
State
produced sufficient
C\
idence
of
Defendants
intent
to assault Sgt.
oRom.
in that
the act alleoed
does
not Constitute
\uhtantIaI
step
tow
ard frst-degree itteinpted
assaLilt.
and
whether the
State produced
suflicient
es idence
of
DcRmdant
s
possession
on the two
drue cons
ictions
h.Hou\
control led
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
11/79
substance
morphine
tablets and rn
sderneanor
mart
juana
possession.
hese suggesui1s
further
address
the first issue.
as th e
seconu iSSue
has
already
been
briefed in DefendanCs second
motion
for
judgment of acquittal.
l iscussion
Insufficient
evidence
of intent
to
assault
Sgt.
Folsom. in
that
the
act
alleged
does not
constitute a substantial step
toward
first-degree
attempted assault.
Thejury convicted
Defendant
of
a crime that the Defendant
could
not
ha e
committed.
in
that
the
facts alleged in
the Substitute Information and
Verdict
Director
d o n ot
lbrm the elements
for attempt under
the
statute.
This
is
a rare ease s here Defendanfs
cons iction
is
thus
a legal
impossibility based
on
the underlying
facts . and there
is
insufficient
idence
to
support
the
coniction.
Stale
it
Summers,
43
S.W.3d
323
M o
\pp.W.I)..
2001).
1rying
to draw a
weapon
to
shoot
at
Sgt.
FoIsom
is
no t
a
fact
that
legally
supports
first-degree
attempted
assault
on
law
enforcement under RSMo. 565.081. First-degree assault requires tha t the
deli?ndant
intended
to
cause death or serious
physical injury to
a
law
enforcement
officer.
Fhher
v
Stale,
359 S.W.3d
113.
121 Mo. App .. 2011: MM CR
3d 319.32.
Note
that the anal
sis
here is not
that
of,
for
example.
third-degree
assault where
an
officer is
pu t in
reasonable apprehension
of
immediate
physical
injury.
t
RSMo.
575.083:
MM-CR
3d 319.34. lb show
intent, the State
must prove
up
idence
of
attempt:
that is. a substantial
step
toward
completion of
the assault.
which
merely
pulling
a
gun ou t from
a
holster
cannot be. lo
hold
otherwise is
plain
error
tinder
ou r
Missoun Supreme ourCs precedent.
and
manifest
injustice would
result.
See.
e
g..
Slate
it
ReeL,
167
S
V
3d
767
\Io.
2005)
and
cases
dkcussed
below.
he
disputed
idence. in
the
best
light
to
the
tate.
was
that
I)efendant
withdrew
a
pistol
from
an
opencarry
holster
on
his belt ,
and
2)
stated
o re
going to
has:
to
shoot
me
l
1
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
12/79
I
mane
Defendant does not concede
either
facts Irguendo
host e er.
those
ji
Ibets
are legally
insufficient
e
idence
of
intent
to a s au lt.
ot of
intent
to
attempt
to
assault.
Sgt
ulsom
under
the
o mgI>
attempts
to
cause
serio
t
ph)
i
l
harm language of KS\Io.
565.081 Ic hold
that
these
facts
are sufficient
ould turn
c
cry
threat vith
a
deadly
e
po
n
into
a
substantial
step
ard the
commission
of
first-degree
assault
on a
l
i
enforcement officer.
Judge
.inibaugh.
riling
for
ou r
Missouri Supreme
ourt
en
h n
has
instructed u othe
n
ise
intent I
dn
attempt
to cause
serious
physical
in u ry cannot
be inferred
from
merely negligently endangering
a
person or property of another.
hoss
eer great
the danger
or
extreme
the negligence.
t te
reL
Verweire
Muo
n 211
S
ik
.3d
89
o . bane
2006):
JIliaIen
49
S.W.3d
at
187
n. 5
citing
t Perkins
Criminal
Law
573-74
Cd ed.l969fl.
One
may
infer
intent
from
tI c
l)e ndants
beha
tar
before.
durinsz and
alter
the
act.
Verweire
at
92:
SWift
lllneman
4
S.W.3d
924.927-28
Mo .
bane 1999).
flie
undisputed
ci
idence
on
the watch .ideo shoi s
L)efendant
drii
ing
to the gas station stating that he beliei
ed
his
computers ii
ert
to be returned
to
him,
and the troopers
admitted
that they
had
lied
to
Defendant and created
a
ruse
in
the
story
about
the
computers.
A
11cr
l)efendant
s
t
hdra
i
al ol
his gun which
he
does
not concede
except
for argument). Defendant iias
shot
and incapacitated.
kt no time
did
Defendant
attempt
tc fire
the
iieapon
or
pull the
trigger, the
only ei idence
the
State
has of
intent
is thc
troopers
dsputed
and inconsistent
testimony that Defendant tsithdrei
his
gun
and stated Youre
going
to
ha i
e
to
shoot me
man. 1)efendant
does t
conceic
that
lie
made
that statement
or
that
such
a tatcmcnt
is
a
threat. Bu t ei
en
ii this
ourt find. that
that
statement
is
a
threat,
a mere
threat
ith
the abilits
to
tarn ou t
that
threat
does
not necess irily
constitute
an attempt
to
commit a crime.
I
7erweire. 211
S.W .3d
at
92-93.
Instead.
there
must
be
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
13/79
strongly corroborating
c
idence that
it was the
defendants
conscious
object to
carry
ut the
threat
Id . I lere there is
none.
Under
these circumstances.
.)efendant
did not hate the
intent
h
cause serioLh phy
cical
injury,
but a t
most merely threatened
to
di)
so.
here
is
no in idence
l elndant
e er pulled
the
trigger.
Ihis
is
not
a
case like
those in
which
the defendant
w s
on icted because
hc
would
hase
iniured
the
ictim
bu t
for
the
malfunctioning
of
his weapon
or
the
intenention
of
law
enforcement.
See. eg
State v Unverzagc,
721
S.W.2d
786. 788 Mo.
pp.l
986) e4
idenee
showing
defendant
pointed
an unlo
ded re ol
er.
belies
ing
it to
be loaded,
at
another
person
four
feet away and pulled
the
trigger
two or
three times was sufficient
to
show
intent to
cause
serious
physical injury): In re
R
N.
687 S.W.2d
655.
656
o.App.1985
evidence
showing
that
defendant entered
a hotel carrying a
lug wrench
and
announced
that
he
as
there
to
assault
the
manager
but
wa s
stopped
by
a
police
officer
as sufficient to
show
intent
to
cause serious
physical
injury). No r
is
this
a
ease
in
which the defendant attempted to cause serious physical
injury but
only minor
injury
resulted from
his
actions.
See.
e.g.,
State
JJhite,
798
.2d
694.
697
Mo.
banc
1990)
evidence
showing
that defbndant
threw the ictim
to
the
floor,
told
the
victim
to shut up or I
will
stab you
and
cut the vic tim without
causing
serious
physit l injun
was
sufficient
to
show
intent
to
cau e serious
physical
injury). Further.
eten
in cases where
a
Defendant wields
a
weapon
and
makes a threat
which
here Defendant
did
not
do).
at
most
only
second-degree
or third-degree
attenpted
assault
can be thund.
Statc
v
Dublo,
\o
l
6202
O.Io.
kpp.. 2007
Spinden.
conturring
defendant
wielding
a deadly
weapon
and
makint
a
threat
may
be
Ihund
guilty
of as.a
ilt
in
the
second
degree or
third
degree
depending
upon the
specific
circumstances
4
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
14/79
s
such
there
is
insuflicient
idence
ol
intent,
and
Defendants
eon
iction flr
his
attempted
assault on
Sgt.
I
olsom must
be
reersed
and
Defendant
acquitted
on
each
of
that
charge
and thus
also
of armed criminal
action.
In
the
altematis
e
to
acquitta
l efendant
es
that the Court instead
remand
for
a
new
trial
only
on a
lesser-int.luded
chaft: of third-degree
attempted
assault
on
law enforcement.
RSNIo.
565.083.
a
Class
misdemeanor.
Armed
Criminal ctionbarred
by Double
Jeopardy
Defendant
also
suggests that
in
any eent
the armed
criminal
action cun iclion iol tes
his rights
under
the
Double
Jeoparch
Clause of the
Fifth
Amendment. U.S.
Const..
while
conceding
that
our appellate
courts
have
no t
addressed
this
precise
issue
since the
armed
criminal
action
cons
iction
was
related to
the attempted
assault
cent
iction
as to
Sgt. Folsom.
See.
g..
v.
Slate
.3d 611
Mo.
2006 : bin
we
State
Peters,
855
.2d
145
Nb..
1993;
Robertson.
CJ..
dissenting .
WHEREFORI:
Defendant
JetTre3
R.
Weinhaus
pra3s this
Court
set aside
the
jury
terdiet
of
guilt
and
enter
a
directed
verdict ibrjudgmern
of
acquittal
on
each
the
I assault
coniction
as
to Sgt . Folsom
2 armed criminal
action
as
to
Sgt. Folsom.
3
Controlled
Substance
possession
felony conviction,
and
.1;
Marijuana
possession
misdemeanor
cons
iction. and
w
such
other relief
as
is
meet
just and
reasonable.
Respectfully
submitted.
\ttimeys
for
Defendant
s
jJyghjEacnrvod
ugh
A.
Eastwood.
MBF
462058
7777
Bonhomme
Menue.
Suite
I6 i3
St. Louis.
Missouri
63
105-1941
heastwood
a
easttt
oodlawstl.com
Fax
U
4 727
473
4
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
15/79
IJ 314
727
3533
li
314 8092343
Christopher
M Combs. MI3L
4655
12
4242
Laclede Ave.. Unit 1 4
St
ouis
MO 63
1 8
comhschris
agmail.com
Tel:
314
57 8 1465
Lax: 314
531 1 69
CLRTIFICATI/
1:
SLRV IC E
The undersigned
certifies that
on
11/15/2013 s he
served
this document
on :
Robert 1
Parks,
Franklin
County
Prosecuting
Attorney
15
S
Church
St Room
204
Union,
Mo 63084
s ih 1Iiiwood
The method s 1
service:
Missouri courts c-tiling
syst m
6
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
16/79
Todays
trial
fiar which
vo hake
been
called for
jury
service
is
a
criminal cace Ihe
State
of Missouri
has chareed
that the defendant
Jeffrc
R
\Veinhaus has committed
the
offenes
of
possessing
a
controlled
substance tampering
with a judicial
ollicer
possessing
marijuana
assault
of
a l enforcement
officer
armed criminal action
assault
of
a enforcement
otlicer
armed criminal
action
and
resisting
arrest Ihe
dehndant has
pleaded
not
guilty
to the charges
Thus
there are
issues of
fact
that
[nust
he
decided by
a
jury subject
to
instructions concerning
the
law
that the
Court
will give
to
the
jury
he
jury
is obligated
to
follow those instructions
A trial of a criminal case begins
with the
selection
ofa
jury
of
qualified and impartial
people In order
to obtain
such a iury
all
of
you
have been
summoned
as
prospective
jurors
From
your number ajury will
be selected
to
hear the
case
It
is
necessary
that
you
be
asked
various
questions Your
answers
will assist the Court
in
determining
whether
it should
excuse
you
from
serving in
this
case
and will assist
the attorneys
in
making their selection of
those
who
will
hear
the
case
lhus
the
questions
that
will he
asked
of
you are
not meant
to
into tour
personal
affairs
Rather they
are
a
necessary
part
of
the
process
of
selecting
alur
Since
this is
an
important
dart of
the
trial
you a re required
to be sworn
heftre questions
are
asked Please rise
now
and be
sworn to
answer
questions
ihe
panel
will he
ssom
Please listen
carefully
t o a ll
questions
ake
your
time
in
ansering questions Some
of
the
questions
may
require
ou to tecall
experiences
during
your entire
lilbtime
Iheretore search
your
memor before anssering
it
you
do
no t
understand
the question
raise
sour
hand
and
say
so
If later
on
during the
examination
you
remember
something
that
you failed to ansser
before or
that
would
modify
an
answer
you
gase
before
raise
our
hand and
ou sill
he
asked
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
17/79
about
it our
answers
must
not
nly
be truthful
bu t t must
he
lull nd
complete It
our
answer
to any of thesc questions m\olses matters
that
are
personal
or prkate y ou may
so
indicate
and you
will
he given an
opportunity
to
state
your answer
at
the bench
The
tri l
of
a
lawsuit
invokes
considerable
time and effort
and the parties
are entitled to
have
their
rights
finalk
determined
lhe
lailure
on your
part
fully
and
truthfully
to
answer
questions
during
this stage
of the
rial
could force
the
p rties
to have
to
retr
the l wsuit
at some
future
date
fhe
Court will now
read
to
you
an
instruction
on the
law applicable to all
criminal
cases
Phe
charge
of
ny
offense
is
not
evidence
and
it
creates
no
inference that
any
offense
was
committed
or
that
the defendant is guilty olan
offense
The
defendant
is
presumed to be
innocent
unless
and unti l
during your
deliberations
upon your
verdict
you f ind
him
guilty
This
presumption of
innocence
places upon
the
State
the
burden
of
proving
beyond a reasonable
doubt th t the defendant is guilty
A reasonable
doubt
is a
doubt
b sed
upon reason and common
sense
afier
carelul and
imp rti l consideration
of
all the idence
in
t he case
Proof
beyond a
reasonable doubt is
proof
th t le ves you firmly
convinced of the
defendants
guilt
The
law does
no t
require
proof
th t overcomes
every possible
doubt
If
after
your
consideration of
all
the
evidence
you are
firmly
convinced that the
defendant is guilty
of
the
crimes charged
you
will
find
him
guilty If you are
not
so
convinced you must
give him
the
benefit
of the
doubt
nd find him
lot guil ty
Is there any
of
you
who it selected
as
a
juror
could not ftr
any
reason
follow
that
instruction?
If
so would
you
please
r ise your
hand
It is your duty
to
follow the
law
as
the
Court gises
it
to
you
iii
the
instructions even
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
18/79
t
houg
h
you
may d
isag
ree with
t \re
the
re
a
ny
of
yo
u
who
wo
uld no
t
be
wi
llin t
o fol
low
all
instr
uctio
ns
t
h t
th
ourt
wi
ll i
to the
u
If
so
wou
ld
ou pleas
e
ra
ise
your hand
.
Int
rodu
ce
th
atto
rney
s and
sk
such
add
ition
al
qu
estio
ns as
th
e
Co
urt
de
ems
a
ppro
priat
e.
The
pros
ecuto
r wi ll q
ues
tin
li
rst n
d then
cou
nsel fo r th d
e1n
dant wi
ll qu
estio
n
you
C
oun
sel for the s
tate m
y proc
eed
.
MAI
C
R
3
rd
2
Sub
mitt
ed
th S
tate
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
19/79
I. A
l
I
HF
FI
RST RF
CFS
S
OR
A
I JO
RNM
EN
It
is
the
o
urts
d
uty to
in
stru
ct
.ou
n
ow upon
a
m
tt r ab
out
which
you wil]
he
reminded
at
each r
eces
s or
a
djou
rnm
ent
of
ur nil
this
se
is
gi
ven
to
ou
10
Jec
ide.
.ou
must
no t
dis
cuss
n
subje
ct con
nect
ed w t m
the
trial am
ong
ou
rseR
es.
or
t
or
or
cxpresc
an\
op n
on
abou
t
it and un
til
you
are
disc
harg
ed
as
jur
ors,
you
mu
st not talk
wit
h
o
ther
s
abou
t
the
case
or
permit the
m
to
disc
uss
it
with you
or in
you
r
hea
ring
.
You
sho
uld not
e-m
ail,
text hiug. in
stan
t
me
ssag
e
or
use any
oth
er fo
rm
ol .omr
nun
icati
on rega
rdin
g
the cas
e or
a
nyon
e
in
oRe
d
in
the
case until
the
t rial has
end
ed
and a
h ve
been
d
ischa
rged
as
a juror.
hi
s impo
rtan
t
that
your
decis
ion be ba
sed only
on the
ev
iden
ce
pr
esen
ted
to
you in
the
pr
ocee
ding
s
in
the cou
rtro
om.
You
s
houl
d not do
am
r
esea
rch or
in
vesti
gatio
n
on your o
wn r
egar
ding
any
ma
ter
in
volv
ed
in
this case.
Fo r
exa
mple
,
y
ou sh
ould not
co
nsu
lt
hoo
ks, dic
tiona
ries
,
the
Int
erne
t or
talk
to
per
son you
cons
ider kno
wled
geab
le.
You
s
houl
d
not
read vi w or
l
isten
to am
new
spap
er,
radio
e
lectr
onic
co
mm
unic
ation
s
from
the
Inte
rnet or
tele
visi
on
rep
ort
o
f the
trial.
The
bailiff
and other
ofticers
of
the
Court
are not
permitted
to
talk
to
yo u
about
any
su
bject
conn
ecte
d
with the
triaL
a
nd you are
not
perm
itte
d
to
talk to them a
bout it.
Ihe
atto
rney
s
re
prese
ntin
g
the
sta
te and the
de
fend
ant
re
und
er
a
duty no t
to do
anyth
ing
that
may eve
n seem
impr
oper
.
Tl,er
cfor
e.
t
re
cess
es
and
a
djou
rnme
nts
they
will
avoid
saying
an
ythin
g
to the
jur
y
c
cept
.
pe
rham
.
som
eth
ing
like
iu
od
m
orn
ing
or
Goo
d afte
rnoo
n.
in
d
oing that they
do
not
m
ean to
be u
nfrie
ndly
,
but
arc
si
mply
doin
g their
b
est
to
avoid
e
en an
ap
pea
ranc
e,
tha
t mig
ht
be
m
isun
ders
tood
.
that
they
or
you
are
do
ing an
ythin
g
Improper
Th
e s m e
a
pplie
s
to
itn
csse
s
and
to the d
efen
dant Ihcy h
ave been or
will he
ris
truc
ted
to
avo
id
all
cont
acts
ith
the ju
r
eve
n
to
talk
about
ma
tters wholly
u
nrela
ted
to
the
case
MM
-CR 3rd
3
00.0
4
Sub
mitt
ed
by
the
Sta
te
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
20/79
2
Al SUBShQLLJT
RI
CLSSES OR
ADJO R\\li
is
fhe
Court
again
reminds
ou of\hat ou
were
told at the first
recess
of
the
Court
nfl
you
retire to consider
our verdict
ou must
not
discuss
this case
among
yourselves
or with
others
or permit anyone
to
discuss
it
in your hearing
You
should not
form
or
x r ss an y
opinion
about
the case until
it is
finally given to
you
to
decide
Do not
do
any research
or
investigation on your
own about
any
matter
regarding this
case
or
anyone
ins olsed \ ith
the
trial
Do
no t
communicate with others
about the case
b
any
means
Do nut read
view ci listen
to
any
newspaper
radio
electronic
communication
from the Internet
or
television
report
of
the
trial
MAT CR
rd
300 04
Submitted by the Stale
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
21/79
f
RE
CES
S F
T R
FIRS
I
S
i GE
OF
1311URCATEI
IR
IAI
Until
Y U reti
re
to
c
ons
ider ou
r
v
erdic
t
as to
p
umsh
men
t.
you
m
ust not
dis
cuss t his se
among
yo
urse
hes or t
ot
hers
or
perm
it
a
n\on
e
to
d
icus
s it in
ou
r hear
ing l
o
nut
do
a
n\
research or
in
vest
igati
on
on
your
about
a
n\
m
atte
r
re
gard
ing
this c
ase or
anx
one
m
oi
with the trial
.
I
o
not
co
mm
unic
ate wit
h oth
ers
a
bou
t
th
e
se
by
any
m
eans
.
Do
not
read
i
ev
or listen to
any
new
spa
per r
adio
ele
ctro
nic com
mun
icati
on
from the
Int
erne
t
or
tel
evis
ion
report
of
the
trial
M
AEC
R
rd
3
00.0
4
S
ubm
itted
by
the Sta
te
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
22/79
his
case
wi
ll
p
roce
ed
in
t
he
fo
llow
ing
o
rde r
F
irst
t
he
Cou
rt
will
rea
d to
\ou
t\\o
in
struc
tion
s
con
cern
ing th
e l
aw
app
licab
le to
th is
cas
e an
d
t
trial
xt
t
he a
ttorn
e for
the s
tate m
ust
mak
e an
op
enin
g sta
teme
nt
Ou
tlinin
g
wh
at
hc
expe
cts th
e stat
s
e\ide
nce w
ill he
lh
e att
orne
\
r the
de
fend
ant
n
ot
r
equi
red
to
mak
e
a
n
open
ing
s
tatem
ent
the
n o
r
at an
y o
ther t
ime.
lo s
ci
he
ch
oose
s to
d
o so.
he
m
a\ ma
ke
a
n
o
peni
ng
s
tatem
ent
af
ter t
hat of t
he
st
ate
or he ni
res
ere
his
op
ening
sta
tem
ent
un t
il the
concusion
of
the
slates
evidence
Evi
denc
e wil
l
th
en he
intro
duc
ed.
A
t the
co
nclu
sion
of
all of
the
ide
nce
fu
rthe
r instr
ucti
ons
in w
ritin
g
conc
erni
ng
the
law
will be
read
to
you
b
y the C
our t
alte
r wh
ich
the
att
orne
ys
may
m
ake
th
eir
argu
ment
s
u
w
ill
the n
be
gi
ven th
e
wri
tten
ins
truc
tions o
f
the
Co
urt
t
o
t
ake
with
you
to
y
our
jury ro
om
Y
ou
wil
l
g
o
to
that
ro
om
sel
ect
a
fo
repe
rson
. de
libe
rate
and
arriv
e
a
t
o
ur verd
ict.
If
you
fin
d
the
defe
ndan
t
gui
lt
i
n this
firs
t
st
age of
th
e tri
al
a
seco
nd
s
tage
o
f
t
he t
ria l
w
ill
be hel
d
I uri
ng
the
se
con
d stage
.
addi
tion
al
inst
ruct
ions
will
he
r
ead to
su
u b
the cou
rt
add
ition
al
e
vide
nce
may
be
pre
sent
ed.
and
the
a
ttorn
ess
make thei
r
arg
ume
nts a
s to
puni
shm
ent.
W
ith
the
a
dditi
onal
i
nstru
ctio
ns of
the
co
urt
you
will
r
eturn
t
o the
ju
ry
r
oom
del
ibera
te
a
nd
de
term
ine
th
e p
un.s
hrne
nt to
he asse
ssed.
Som
etim
es
the
re are
d
ela s or
c
onfb
ence
s
ou
t
o
f yo
ur
hear
ing wi
th
the
a
uoin
e\
abou
t
m
atter
s o
f
law
.
l
heI
e
ar
e
good
r
uo
n
f
or th
ese
dela
y
an
d
con
fere
nces
h
e o
ur:
c
nm t
de ni
that
ou
will
he
p
atien
t
a
nd
und
eist
andi
ng.
W
e wi
ll h
rec
esse
s
fro
m
time
t
o
time
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
23/79
he
following o
insiruetiois
of i r
br
our guidance
in
this ease
Uhe
to ci
them
along
with other
instructions r:11nc read
to
ou at the close
01 all
the
e
idence
ili
he
handed
to you
at
that
t m
to
take
our
ur ruom
NL\1CR 3rd
3 6
Submitted
h
the State
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
24/79
lSiR
[C
lON \O
T
hese who p
artic
ipate
in
jur
tri
l
mus
t
do
so m ac
cord
ance \\
ith e
stahi
tshe
d
r
u es
fh
is
is t
rue of
the
p
artie
s
the
witn
esse
s th
e l
awy
ers
an
d th
e
ju
dge
It
is
c
qual
l
true
of
ju
rors It
is th
e
Cou
rts
du
ty
to e
nforc
e th
ose rules an
d to i
nstr
uct
you
fl
th
e
a
ppli
cable
to
t
he c
ase
I
t
is
y
our
dut\
to
fo
llo t
he
l
aw
as th
e
Cou
rt
tive
s to
o
n
H
owev
er no sta
tem
ent
rulin
g
o
r r
ema
rk
tha
t
m
ay
mak
e d
urin
g
t
he
t
rial
is
in
tend
ed
to
ind
icat
e
my o
pinio
n of
wh
at
t
he lhc
ts
a
rc.
It
is y
our duty
t
o d
eterm
ine
the lh
cts
and
to de
term
ine
the
m
on
ly
f
rom th
e
evid
ence an
d th
e
re
ason
able
infe
renc
es
to be dra
wn f
rom
th
e
e
vide
nce Y
our
decision
must
be
b
ased
only
on
the
evi
denc
e pres
ente
d to
you
in
th
e
pro
ceed
ings
in this
co
urtro
om
a
nd yo
u
ma y
not
con
duct
y
ou r
ow
n
re
searc
h or in
estig
alio
n
int
o
an
\
th
e
issu
es
in
this
c
ase .
I
n you
r d
eter
mina
tion
of
the
facts
yo
u
alo
ne m
ust d
ecid
e
upon
the be
liev
abili
ty of
the
wi
tness
es
and the
we
ight
an
d
v
alue
of th
e
e
iden
ce
In
d
eter
mini
ng
the belie
vabi
lity
o
f
a
w
itnes
s an
d t
he
w
eigh
t
t
o
he
giv
en t
o
te
stim
ony
of
th
e
w
itnes
s
y
ou
m
ay
take
in to
consideration
the
witness
manner
while testifying:
the
ability
and
op
port
unity
of t
he w
itnes
s
to obs
erve
and
rem
em
ber
an
m
att
er
abou
t
wh
ich
te
stim
on\
is g
i
e
n;
a
ny
inte
rest bia
s
o
r pre
judi
ce
th
e
wi
tness
ma
y
hav
e; th
e
r
easo
nabl
enes
s
of the
w
itne
ss
tes
timo
ny
con
side
red
in
the li
gh t o
f
al
l o
f th
e evid
enc
e
in
the
cas
e;
an
d
any
othe
r
ma
tter
that
has
a
te
nden
cy
in
reaso
n to
p
rove or
disp
rove th
e tr
uthfu
lnes
s o
f th
e
tes
tim o
ny
of
the
wi
tness
.
Fait
hful
per
form
ance
b
y
you
of
your
dutie
s a
s juro
rs is vit
al
to
th
e
a
dmin
istra
tion
of
j
ustic
e.
You s
houl
d
p
erfo
rm yo
ui d
utie
s ith
ou t preju
dice
or
fear
an
d soIe
I\
h
om
a fair
and
imp
artia
l
con
side
ratio
n
the
who
le
ea
se.
M
AI C
R 3r
d
3O
2M
l
Su
bm i
tted by
th
e
Sta
te
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
25/79
lSl
R
li
ON
O
Yo
u mu
st
no
t
as
sume
as
true
an
y
fi
ct
sole
k
b
eca
use it
is
inclu
ded
in
or sug
geste
d h\
a
qu
estio
n aske
d
a
witn
ess
A
q
ucs:
ion
not ev
iden
ce
and
ma
he
c
onsi
dere
d on
ly
as
uppI
ics
m
ean
ing to
the
an
swe
r
rom tim
e to
time
the atto
rney
s
m
ay
m
ake
ob
jecti
ons
lhe
v ha
ve
a
righ
t
to do
so
a
nd
are
on
ly doin
g
t
heir
d
uty
as
the
y
s
ee
ii
You
sh
ould
dra
w
no inl
ren
cc
from
the fac
t
tha
t
an
obj
ectio
n
h
as
been ma
de
If
the
court
sustains
an
ohec
non
to
a question
von
will
disregard
the
entire question
and
y
ou
shou
ld n
ot
spec
ulate
as to wh
at
the
answ
er
of th
e witn
ess
migh
t
hav
e b
een
T
he
s m
e
app
lies
to e
xhib
its o
fftre
d
h
ut exc
lude
d from
the ev
iden
ce
after a
n ob
jecti
on has b
een sus
taine
d
You
wil
l
also d
isre
gard
an
y
a
nsw
er
or
o
ther m
atte
r
wh
ich
the
Co
urt
dire
cts
you
n
ot
to
co
nsid
er
and
anyt
hing w
hich
the
Cou
rt
or
ders
stric
ken
1mm
the
r
ecor
d
The ope
ning
st
atem
ents
o
f
the
atto
rne
ys
a
re
n
ot
eide
nce Al
so yo
u m
ust no
t c
onsi
der as
e
vide
nce
a
ny state
men
t
o
r
re
mar
k o
r ar
gum
ent by
any
of
th
e atto
rney
s
a
ddre
ssed
to
a
noth
er
tto
rney
or
to
the d
efen
dant
or
to t
he
C
ourt
lowe
ver
th
e
a
ttorn
eys
m
ay en
ter in
to ag
reem
ents or
sti
pulat
ions
o
f
fac
t
The
se
a
gree
men
ts an
d stip
ulat
ions
beco
me
pa
rt
of
the e
vide
nce
a
nd are
to
be
c
onsi
dere
d b
y
yo
u
as
such
M
A1
CR
3rd
302
02
Sub
mitte
d b
y th
e Stat
e
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
26/79
i
ST
R
t
Uh
e
l w ap
plica
ble
to
th
is
s
e
i
s
st
ated
in t
hese
in
struc
tion
s
and
th
e
whi
h
the
Co
urt
r
e d
to y
ou
imm
edia
tely
aft
er
y
ou w
ere s
wor
n
a
s ju
rors
A
ll
of
the ins
truc
tions
il
be
g
iven
to
y
ou
to
tak
e
to
you
r
ju
ry ro
o
o
r u
se du
ring so
ur
delib
erat
ions
ou
mus
t
no
t
sing
le
u ce
rtain
i
nstru
ctio
ns
nd
d
isre
gard
oth
ers
or
qu
estio
n
the
si
sdor
n
o
f
a
ny
rule
o
f l
aw
The
C
our
t
d
oes n
ot
m
ean to
assu
me
a
s true
ny
f
t refe
rred
to
in
thes
e
in
struc
tion
s
h
ut
le
ves
it
to
y
ou to det
erm
ine
w
hat
the
fac
ts are
\ A
C
R
rd
O
O
3
S
ubm
itted
by t
he
Sta
te
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
27/79
ISTRUCT ON
NO
T
he
ch
arge
of any
o
lTe
nse is no
t ev
iden
ce
and
cre
tes
no
inf
eren
ce that
of
te
nse
w s
c
omm
itte
d
or
th at th
e
def
enda
nt
is
g
uilt
y
ol
n
ol
tens
e
Uh
e
de
fend
ant is
pre
sum
ed to h
e in
noc
ent
u
nles
s a
nd
un
til
duri
ng
you
r
d
elib
erati
ons
upon
y
our
v
erdic
t y
ou
f
ind
hi
m
gu i
lty
T
his
pr
esum
ptio
n
o
f
inno
cenc
e
plac
es u
pon
the
s
tate
t
he
bu r
den
of
p
rovi
ng
be
yond
a r
easo
nabl
e
do
ub t th
at t
he d
efen
dan
t
is
gu
ilty
A r
easo
nabl
e dou
bt i
s
a
dou
bt ba s
ed
u
pon
re
ason
and
comm
on
s
ense
af
ter ca
reful
a
nd
impa
rtial
c
onsid
erat
ion
of
all
th
e
evid
ence
in
the
c
ase
Pr
oof
beyo
nd
a
rea
sona
ble dou
bt
is
proo
f
that
le
aves
y
ou
f
irml y
con
vinc
ed
of the
def
enda
nts
guil
t The
law
do
es no
t req
uire
proo
f
that
ove
rcom
es ever
y po
ssib
le
d
oub
t f
a
fter
you
r
cons
ider
ation of
a
ll
th
e ev
iden
ce
you
are
firm
ly
co
nvin
ced
t
hat
the defe
ndan
t is
guilt
y
of
th
e
cri
mes
char
ged
yo
u
wi l
l
f
ind
hi
m gu ilt
y i
f yo
u are
no
t
so
con
vinc
edyo
u
mu s
t
g
ive him
th
e
bene
fit
of th
e
d
oubt
an d fin
d hi
m no
t
g
uilty
M
AlC
R
3rd
3
2
4
S
ubm
itted
by t
he S
tate
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
28/79
N
S
R
IC
JI
O
NN
O
Und
er
th
e
kr
a d
efend
ant
h
as
the
rig
ht
not
to
tis
til>
No
p
resu
mpti
on
of
g
uilt
maY
lie
m
js
j
an
d n
o in
fere
nce
o
f
a
n>
kind
n
he
dr
n
frn
:n
th
fa
n
th
at
th
e d
elend
ant
didnot tcstif>
2 U
nde
r
the
t
t
he w
ik
f a
de
fend
ant
has
th
e r
ight
not to
tes
nfS
No
inkr
ene
of
an
>
k
ind
ma
>
be
dr
awn fr
om
i
flict
th
t
the
w
ife
d
id
not
te
stify
M
MC
R
3
d
30
814
S
ubm
itted
by
the D
efen
dan
t
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
29/79
INST
RU
CTI
ON
NO
As
to Co
un t
i
i you
fi
nd
and be
lieve
from the
e
id
en
e bey
ond
a r
easo
nabl
e d
oub t
:
Fi
rst tha t
o
n or
abou
t
ugu
st
20
12
in
the
C
oun t
y
of
Fra
nkli
n
St a
te ofMi
ssou
ri
th
e
d
efen
dant
p
osse
ssed
m
orph
ine
a c
on tr
olled
su
bsta
nce
and
Sec
ond
th
at
de
n
d
nt w
as aw
are
of
its
pr
esen
ce
and
natu
re
th
en
y
ou
w
ill
find the
defendant
guilty under Count
of
possessing
a
controlled
substance
How
ever
un
less
you
fi
nd
an
d
be
lieve
from
the
evi
denc
e
beyo
nd
a
r
easo
nabl
e
doub
t
each
and
all
of these
pr
opo
sition
s
y
ou
mus
t
f
ind the
de
fend
ant
not
gu
ilty
o
f that
o
ffen
se
M
ICR
3r
d
325
02
Su b
mitt
ed
t
he S
tate
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
30/79
INSTRUCTION
NO
As
to C
oun
t if
yo
u find a
nd beli
eve f
rom
th
e
evid
ence
bey
ond
a rea
sona
ble
d
oubt
:
F
irst
th
at o
n
o
r abo
ut A
ugu
st
2
12
in
th
e Cou
nty of F
rank
lin
St
ate o
fMis
souri
t
he
de
fend
ant poss
esse
d
ma
rijua
na
a
co
ntrol
led
s
ubst
ance
.
a
nd
Sec
ond
tha
t defe
nda
nt
w
aw
are
of i
ts
p
rese
nce a
nd na
ture
th
en
y
ou
w
ill
f
ind th
e def
end
ant g
uilty u
nder Co
unt
of
poss
essi
ng m
ariju
ana.
H
owe
ver
unle
ss you find a
nd
b
elie
ve
fro
m
the
evid
ence beyo
nd
a
rea
sona
ble
do
ub t
each
a
nd
a
ll
of
the
se
pr
opos
ition
s
you
mu
st fi
nd
th
e
d
efen
dan
t
not g
uilt
y
of
tha
t o
flns
e.
M
MC
R 3r
d
3
25.0
2
Sub
mitt
ed
b
y
the
Stat
e
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
31/79
F
NSI
RUC
1IO
N
N
O
s to
Co
unt
\
if
you find
an
d b
e
ie
e fro
rri
the ev
iden
ce b
eyo
nd
a rea
sona
b e
do
ubt:
Fi
rst
th
at
on
o
r abo
ut
Sep
tem
ber
1
1
2012
in
the Cou
nty
of Fran
klin
Stat
e
o
f
M
iss
ouri
the
def
enda
nt
atte
mpt
ed
to cau
se
seri
ous
phy
sical
inju
ry
t
o
Sgt
oiso
m
by
shoo
ting
him
an
d
Sec
ond.
th
at
Sg
t Fo
lsom
w
as
a
law e
nfiw
cein
eni
off
icer
and
Third.
that
defendant
was
av
are Sgt
Folsom
w
a
l
aw
e
nfor
cem
ent
offic
er.
then
yo
u
will
find
t
he
defe
ndan
t
guil
ty
u
nder
C
oun
t IV
o
f
a
ssau
lt
o
f
a
law
en
forc
emen
t
offi
cer
in
t
fir
st
d
egre
e
un
der
thi
s ins
truct
ion
Ho
wev
er
un
less
yo
u
fin
d
a
nd
be
lieve
fr
om
t
he e
vide
nce
bey
ond
a reaso
nab
le
dou
bt
ea
ch
a
nd
all o
f
thes
e
pr
op
os
iti
on
s
yo
u
m
ust
fin
d th
e d
e
fen
d
an
t
rio
t
g
uilty
o
f
tha
t o
ns
un
der
thi
s
in
struc
tion.
M
AT
CR
3rd
319.
32
Sub
mitt
ed
b
y
th
e Sta
te
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
32/79
iN
STR
UC
TION
NO
A
s
to
C
ount
V
if
you
fin
d a
nd
bel
ieve
from
th
e ev
iden
ce be
yond
a reas
onab
le do
ubt
Firs
t
tha
t
defe
nda
nt
co
mmi
tted
th
e offen
se
of ass
ault
o
f
a
law
enfo
rcem
ent off
icer
in
t
he
fi
rst
d
egre
e
as
s
ubm
itted
i
n Ins
truct
ion
No
an
d
Se
cond
that
d
efen
dant
com
mitt
ed
tha
t
offen
se w
ith t
he know
ing of
a
de
adly
w
eap
on
then
yo u
will f
ind
the
defe
ndan
t u
lty und
er
C
oun
t V of a
rme
d
cri
mina
l
a
ctio
n
How
ever
unle
ss
yo
u
f
ind
and be
lieve
from
th
e ev
idenc
e
b
eyo
nd
a
re
ason
able dou
bt
eac
h
and a
ll of
t
hese
prop
ositi
ons
ou
mus
t fin
d th
e
defe
nda
nt
no
t
guilt
y o
f t
hat
offe
nse
M
AT C
R
3
32 0
2
Sub
mitt
ed
by the
Stat
e
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
33/79
INS RUCTION
NO .
dD
As to
Count VI.
if
you find
and believe
f rom the evidence beyond
a
reasonable doubt:
First
that
on
or
about September
11 2012 in
the
County
of Franklin State of
Missouri
the defendant
attempted to
cause serious physical
injury
to
Cpl.
Mertens
by
shooting
him
and
econd
that
p1.
Mertens
was
a
law
enforcement
officer
and
Phird
that defendant
was
aware
Cpl.
Mertens
was
a
law enforcement
officer
then
you
will find
the
defendant
guilty
under Count
VI
of
assault
of
a
law
enforcement
officer
in
the
first degree
under
this instruction.
However
unless you
f ind 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 under this
instruction.
MM CR
3rd
319.32
Submitted
by
the
State
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
34/79
INSTRUCTION
O
As
to
Co
unt
Vii
if
fin
d and b
elie
ve
fr
om
the
evid
enc
e beyo
nd
a
re
ason
able doub
t:
Firs t
that
def
enda
nt co
mmi
tted
the of
fens
e
of ass
ault
of
law
enfo
rcem
ent
of
ficer
i
n the
first
deg
ree
as
subm
itte
d in in
struc
tion
No
/
an
d
e
cond
that
defe
ndan
t co
mmi
tted th
at
o
ffen
se
w
ith
the
k
now
ing
of a dead
ly
w
eapo
n
then
you
w
ill
find
the
de
fend
ant g
uilty
un
der ou
t
of
ar
med c
rim
inal
ac t
ion
Ho
wev
er
unle
ss yo
u fin
d
an
d
bel
ieve
from
the
ev
iden
ce be
yon
d a reas
ona
ble d
oubt ea
ch
and
al
l
of
th
ese
pro
posi
tion
s. you
mus
t
find
the
d
efen
dant
not gu
ilty of
t
ha t offe
nse
M
AI
-CR
332
.02
Subm
itte
d
by
the
Sta
te
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
35/79
INS FlU C
ION NO
The
toIlointt
terms
use
ii
these
instructions
are
defined
s
1olIos:
Attempt
to
commit
an
offense .
he doing
01 any
act hF the
purposL
of committin
an
oftense.
v
eti
act
s
a
substantial
step
to\ard
the comni:ssior
of
the
ol lnse
A
uhstaitial
step
means conduct
which is strongl currohorati\
e
of
the
lirinness
of the actors purpose
to
complete the
commission
of the offense.
Possess. Possessed,
or Possession.
Means
either actual
or
constructi
c
possession
of
the
substance
\
person
as
actual possession
if
the
person has
the
substance on his or
her person or
v
ithin eas reach
n
convenient
control. \ person
ho although not in
actual
possession. has
the
po er
n
intention
at a gi en time to exercise dominion or
control o er
the
substance either
direeth
or
through
another
person or persons
is
in constructive poSsesSion
of
it
tPossession
may also
he
sole or
loint.
if
one person alone has
possession of
a
substance.
possession
is sole.
if to or more persons
share
possession
ot
a
substance.
possesson
is
Joint
Serious
physical
injury.
Means
ph
sical
injury
that creates
a
substantial
risk of death
or that
causes
serious
disfigurement
or
protracted loss
or impairment of the
function of arty part ol the body
\I\l CR
33301
Submitted
l cfendani
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
36/79
\XIRLCII \
\o
3
The
defendant
IS charged
ith
a
separate oftnse
In each of
the six
counts submitted
to
you
Each
count
must
he
considered
separatel\
ou
should
return
a
separate erdci
for
each
coun: aad \O a can return
oaR one
crdict
for
each
COUflL
MAECR
rd 3 4i2
Submitted b
the tate
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
37/79
IN
STR
LCT
ION NO
Whe
n
you
reti
re
to vou
rjur
\ ro
om \ ou
will fi
rst sel
ec t
o
ne
you
r
num
ber
to ct
as
y
our
o
repe
rson a
nd to
pre
side ove
r
y
our
de
libe
ratio
ns.
Y
ou
w
ill
the
n disc
uss the
c
ase w
ith
y
our
l
ellow
ju
rors
ch
of y
ou
m
ust
dec
ide
the
c se
fo
r
your
self b
ut
yo
u
sho
uld
do
so
o
nly
after
you
hve
co
nsid
ered l
l
th
e evid
ence
d
iscu
ssed it
f
ully w
ith
th
e
ot
her
juro
rs a
nd
l
isten
ed to
th
e
vi
ews
o
f your tdl
low
jur
ors.
You
r verd
ict w
heth
er guil
ty
or
n
ot gu
ilty m
ust
be agr
eed to
by
e
ch juro
r.
Alth
oug
h the
verd
ict
m
ust be
u
nan
imou
s
th
e
ver
dict
shou
ld
h
e s
igne
d
b
y
you
r
f
orep
erson
a
lone
hen
you h
ve
co
nclud
ed
you
r
del
ibera
tion
s
y
ou will c
omp
lete
the a
ppli
cabl
e
fb
rms
to
whi
ch
you unan
imo
usly
ag
ree
and
retur
n the
m w
ith
a
ll u
nuse
d
form
s and
the
writ
ten
inst
ruct
ions
o
f the
Co
urt.
M
AI
CR 3
rd 30
2.05
Sub
mitt
ed
by th
e
S
tate
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
38/79
lS RI
Cl l
NO
fhe attornexs
wil l nov
1ir
e
the
upportumt\
ol
arcuinu
the case
to
you
Iheir
areuments
are
intended
le
help
ou
in understanding
the
evidence
and
applying
the law
but th ey are no t
evidence
You
will
bear
in
mind
that it is
your d uty to
be
governed
in your deliberations
by
the
evidence
as you remember
it the
reasonable
inferences which
you believe
should
he
drawn
therefrom and
the l as
given in these instructions
It
is
your
duty
and
yours alone to render
such
verdict
under
the
law
and
the
evidence
as
in
your
reason
and
conscience
is
true
and just
The
states attorney
m u st o pe n the
argument
The deibndanls attorney
may
then
argue
the
case
The
states
attorney
may
then reply
No
further
argument
is
permitted
by
either
side
MA CR
3rd
3 2 6
Submitted
by the
State
-
8/10/2019 Jeffrey Weinhaus LF Vol II
39/79
l l l ClION\
/
As
to
Count
I you
have
found
the
defendant
guilty of
possessing
a
controlled
substance.
At this
stage
of
the
trial
it will
he
your
duty
to
determine
within
the
limits prescribed
by law
the
punishment
that
must
be
imposed
ft r those offenses.
[he punishment
prescribed
by
lav for
possessing
a
controlled
substance
is:
Imprisonment
for a
terni ofvcars
fixed by
you.
hut
not
less than
years
and
not to
exceed
seven
years.
2.
Imprisonment
in
the county
jail for
a term
fixed
by
you but
no t
to
exceed
o