sufficiency of the evidence claim in Missouri

2007“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we determine whether sufficient evidence permits a reasonable trier of fact to find guilt.” State v. McCoy, 90 S.W.3d 503 , 505 (Mo.App.2002) (citing State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 895 (Mo. banc 1995)).

2005Defendant also claims that the steps to the multifamily apartment building were “presumptively open to the public.” “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we determine whether sufficient evidence permits a reasonable trier of fact to find guilt.” State v. McCoy, 90 S.W.3d 503 , 505 (Mo.App.2002); (citing State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 895 (Mo.banc 1995)).

2025“If that evidence supports equally valid inferences, it is up to the factfinder to determine which inference to believe, as the factfinder is permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the evidence as the evidence will permit.” Lehman, 617 S.W.3d at 847 (quotation omitted); see also Grim, 854 S.W.2d at 406 (“If a jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, so long as the evidence meets the minimal appellate standard required by due process, we need not disturb the result simply because the case depended wholly, mostly, or partially upon circumstantial proof.”).

2023Sufficiency of the evidence challenges in Missouri have long echoed “the due process standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).” State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 52 (Mo. banc 1998) (quoting State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Mo. banc 1993)).

1992Said that he would not go for, for reasons that, for some reasons that he said, and that, uh, that he stiffened up his arms when I attempted to place the handcuffs on him.” (Emphasis added.) “In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and evidence and inferences contrary to the verdict are ignored.” State v. Mallett, 732 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Mo. banc 1987).

1989“In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and evidence and inferences contrary to the verdict are ignored.” State v. Mallett, 732 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Mo. banc 1987).

2024See, e.g., Beery v. Beery, 840 S.W.2d 244, 245-46 (Mo. App. 1992) (declining to address a constitutional argument in a point on appeal alleging both a constitutional and a sufficiency of the evidence claim and subsequently finding the evidence sufficient to support the lower court’s judgment); see also State v. Gaines, 316 S.W.3d 440, 454 (Mo. App. 2010) (recognizing an appellant’s attempt to raise an unpreserved argument framed as a sufficiency of the evidence argument and refusing to consider the unpreserved argument, instead reviewing only the sufficiency of the evidence under the statute).

2017See State v. Stover, 388 S.W.3d 138, 153-54 (Mo. banc 2012); see also Hutson, 487 S.W.3d at 109 (“The reviewing court reviews a sufficiency of the evidence claim not based on how the jury was instructed but upon how the crime was charged.”) (citing State v. Zetina-Torres, 482 S.W.3d 801, 809 (Mo. banc 2016)).

2014State v. Ecford, 239 S.W.3d 125, 127 (Mo.App.2007).

2014Ecford, 239 S.W.3d at 127 .

2013For reasons explained herein, we deny all three points and affirm the judgment and convictions. 3 General Principles of Review “Appellate review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim ‘is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Bowman, 337 S.W.3d 679, 688 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting State v. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo. banc 2002)).

2011Appellate review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim “is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo. banc 2002).

2025Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 199 (Mo. banc 2014).

2025“Substantial evidence is evidence that, if believed, has some probative force on each fact that is necessary to sustain the circuit court's judgment.” Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 199 (Mo. banc 2014).

2025“A verdict-directing instruction must contain each element of the offense charged and must require the jury to find every fact necessary to constitute essential elements of [the] offense charged.” State v. Stover, 388 S.W.3d 138, 153-54 (Mo. 2012) (cleaned up).

2017See State v. Stover, 388 S.W.3d 138, 153-54 (Mo. banc 2012); see also Hutson, 487 S.W.3d at 109 (“The reviewing court reviews a sufficiency of the evidence claim not based on how the jury was instructed but upon how the crime was charged.”) (citing State v. Zetina-Torres, 482 S.W.3d 801, 809 (Mo. banc 2016)).

2023Jackson v. Virginia made clear that, in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 (emphasis in original).

2023When addressing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 .

2023P.L.S., 651 S.W.3d at 892 n.5 (quoting State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d. 358, 362 (Mo. banc 2015)).

2023We therefore treat any such argument as abandoned and focus only on his conviction for first-degree murder. 1 Jr. (“Victim”). 2 While Gomez’s brief fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 84.04 governing appellate briefing, the State argues the merits of Gomez’s point in its Respondent’s brief, and we are nonetheless able to discern he is raising a sufficiency- of-the-evidence challenge. 3 Our Supreme Court “‘long has held that sufficiency claims are considered on appeal even if not briefed or not properly briefed in the appellate courts.’” State v. Lehman, 617 S.W.3d 843 , 847 n

2013“This is not an assessment of whether the Court believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but rather a question of whether, in light of the evidence most favorable to the State, any rational fact-finder ‘could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681, 687 (Mo. banc 2010) (internal quotations omitted)).

2012Our review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim “is limited to whether the State has introduced sufficient evidence for any reasonable juror to have been convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500, 508-09 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 421 , 181 L.Ed.2d 274 (2011).

2025Another formulation likewise recognizes the dual legal and factual components of the sufficiency analysis: “Our role is ‘limited to [1] ensuring that a valid legal theory supports the conviction and [2] that there is some evidence from which a rational jury could find in favor of that legal theory.’” United States v. Johnson, 916 F.3d 579, 589 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Henderson, 2 F.4th 593 , 598–99 (6th Cir. 2021) (observing that “when . . . a [sufficiency-of-the- evidence] challenge focuses on whether the statute under which the defendant was convi

2024Another formulation likewise recognizes the dual legal and factual components of the sufficiency analysis: “Our role is ‘limited to [1] ensuring that a valid legal theory supports the conviction and [2] that there is some evidence from which a rational jury could find in favor of that legal theory.’” United States v. Johnson, 916 F.3d 579, 589 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Henderson, 2 F.4th 593 , 598–99 (6th Cir. 2021) (observing that “when . . . a [sufficiency-of-the- evidence] challenge focuses on whether the statute under which the defendant was convi

2025Another formulation likewise recognizes the dual legal and factual components of the sufficiency analysis: “Our role is ‘limited to [1] ensuring that a valid legal theory supports the conviction and [2] that there is some evidence from which a rational jury could find in favor of that legal theory.’” United States v. Johnson, 916 F.3d 579, 589 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Henderson, 2 F.4th 593 , 598–99 (6th Cir. 2021) (observing that “when . . . a [sufficiency-of-the- evidence] challenge focuses on whether the statute under which the defendant was convi

2024Another formulation likewise recognizes the dual legal and factual components of the sufficiency analysis: “Our role is ‘limited to [1] ensuring that a valid legal theory supports the conviction and [2] that there is some evidence from which a rational jury could find in favor of that legal theory.’” United States v. Johnson, 916 F.3d 579, 589 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Henderson, 2 F.4th 593 , 598–99 (6th Cir. 2021) (observing that “when . . . a [sufficiency-of-the- evidence] challenge focuses on whether the statute under which the defendant was convi

2025See, e.g., State v. Liberty, 370 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Mo. banc 2012), superseded on other grounds by § 573.037 (evaluating a double jeopardy challenge involving a claimed continuous course of conduct). 19 [c]onduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurs within this state.” § 541.191.1(1).

2024See, e.g., State v. Liberty, 370 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Mo. banc 2012), superseded on other grounds by § 573.037 (evaluating a double jeopardy challenge involving a claimed continuous course of conduct). 19 Baum further claims that none of the conduct alleged to support the offense of promoting a sexual performance occurred in Missouri; thus, the evidence establishes Missouri’s jurisdiction is insufficient.

2025Another formulation likewise recognizes the dual legal and factual components of the sufficiency analysis: “Our role is ‘limited to [1] ensuring that a valid legal theory supports the conviction and [2] that there is some evidence from which a rational jury could find in favor of that legal theory.’” United States v. Johnson, 916 F.3d 579, 589 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Henderson, 2 F.4th 593 , 598–99 (6th Cir. 2021) (observing that “when . . . a [sufficiency-of-the- evidence] challenge focuses on whether the statute under which the defendant was convi

2024Another formulation likewise recognizes the dual legal and factual components of the sufficiency analysis: “Our role is ‘limited to [1] ensuring that a valid legal theory supports the conviction and [2] that there is some evidence from which a rational jury could find in favor of that legal theory.’” United States v. Johnson, 916 F.3d 579, 589 (7th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Henderson, 2 F.4th 593 , 598–99 (6th Cir. 2021) (observing that “when . . . a [sufficiency-of-the- evidence] challenge focuses on whether the statute under which the defendant was convi

2025As one court explained: “‘To assess the sufficiency of the evidence, we [1] first determine the elements of the offense and [2] then examine whether the evidence suffices to establish each element.’” Simpson v. Carpenter, 912 F.3d 542, 591 (10th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

2024As one court explained: “‘To assess the sufficiency of the evidence, we [1] first determine the elements of the offense and [2] then examine whether the evidence suffices to establish each element.’” Simpson v. Carpenter, 912 F.3d 542, 591 (10th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

2023Sufficiency of the evidence challenges in Missouri have long echoed “the due process standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).” State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 52 (Mo. banc 1998) (quoting State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Mo. banc 1993)).

2009State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 52 (Mo. banc 1998). 3 .Appellant testified at trial that he never admitted to using methamphetamine, but we view all evidence and draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the verdict.

2023Discussion “TAJn appellant’s most fundamental task in a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge [is] to account for all of the favorable evidence in the record, and all the reasonable available inferences therefrom, that could support its challenged factual proposition, and then confront and dispel the probative value attending the same supportive evidence and inferences.” State v. Hooper, 552 S.W.3d 123, 137 (Mo. App. 8.D. 2018) (internal citation omitted); see also Jones, 553 S.W.3d at 13 915-16 (finding a defendant’s reliance on evidence supporting his own position was unavailing in challengi

2022See Jones, 553 S.W.3d at 915–16 (internal citation omitted) (finding a defendant’s reliance on evidence supporting his own position was unavailing in challenging the sufficiency of the State’s evidence that he did not act in self-defense); see also State v. Hooper, 552 S.W.3d 123, 137 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original) (“[A]n appellant’s most fundamental task in a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge [is] to account for all of the favorable evidence in the record, and all the reasonable available inferences therefrom, that could support its challenged fact

2023Discussion “TAJn appellant’s most fundamental task in a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge [is] to account for all of the favorable evidence in the record, and all the reasonable available inferences therefrom, that could support its challenged factual proposition, and then confront and dispel the probative value attending the same supportive evidence and inferences.” State v. Hooper, 552 S.W.3d 123, 137 (Mo. App. 8.D. 2018) (internal citation omitted); see also Jones, 553 S.W.3d at 13 915-16 (finding a defendant’s reliance on evidence supporting his own position was unavailing in challengi

2022See Jones, 553 S.W.3d at 915–16 (internal citation omitted) (finding a defendant’s reliance on evidence supporting his own position was unavailing in challenging the sufficiency of the State’s evidence that he did not act in self-defense); see also State v. Hooper, 552 S.W.3d 123, 137 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original) (“[A]n appellant’s most fundamental task in a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge [is] to account for all of the favorable evidence in the record, and all the reasonable available inferences therefrom, that could support its challenged fact

2019See State v. May , 71 S.W.3d 177 , 183 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (granting plain-error review of the defendant's sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim because whether the State met its burden to present a prima facie case sufficient to sustain a conviction on the charged offense affects a defendant's substantial rights).

2019See State v. May, 71 S.W.3d 177, 183 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (granting plain-error review of the defendant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim because whether the State met its burden to present a prima facie case sufficient to sustain a conviction on the charged offense affects a defendant’s substantial rights).

2010Standard of Review Defendant’s specific assertion on appeal is “that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that [Defendant] had knowledge of the presence and nature of the unweighable, invisible residue inside the capped syringe that [Defendant] picked up from the kitchen counter in someone else’s house.” 2 In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we must determine whether “there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Mo. banc 1989).

2001State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Mo. banc 1989).

2024Id.

2021In her final Point, M.L.H. argues the circuit court erred in finding M.L.H. delinquent for committing the offense of tampering with electronic monitoring equipment, because there was insufficient evidence from which the court could find that M.L.H. had been required by court order to wear electronic monitoring equipment. 12 “For a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, ‘[t]he evidence, including all reasonable inferences therefrom, is considered in the light most favorable to the judgment, disregarding all contrary inferences.’” D.C.M., 578 S.W.3d at 786 (citation omitted).

2007“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we determine whether sufficient evidence permits a reasonable trier of fact to find guilt.” State v. McCoy, 90 S.W.3d 503 , 505 (Mo.App.2002) (citing State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 895 (Mo. banc 1995)).

2005Defendant also claims that the steps to the multifamily apartment building were “presumptively open to the public.” “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we determine whether sufficient evidence permits a reasonable trier of fact to find guilt.” State v. McCoy, 90 S.W.3d 503 , 505 (Mo.App.2002); (citing State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 895 (Mo.banc 1995)).

2023Instead ... we are concerned only with whether there is sufficient evidence to support the charged crime, based on the elements of the crime as set forth by statute and common law and the 7 evidence adduced at trial." State v. Brown, 558 S.W.3d 105, 109 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (quoting State v. Voss, 488 S.W.3d 97, 108-10 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016)).

2018A similar argument was recently addressed in detail and rejected by this Court in State v. Voss , 488 S.W.3d 97 , 108-10 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016), where we held in relevant part: [I]n determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we are not concerned with the language of the verdict-directing instruction submitted to the jury.

2021“For a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, ‘[t]he evidence, including all reasonable inferences therefrom, is considered in the light most favorable to the judgment, disregarding all contrary inferences.’” Id. (quoting State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464, 473-74 (Mo. banc 2005)).

2019For a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, "[t]he evidence, including all reasonable inferences therefrom, is considered in the light most favorable to the judgment, disregarding all contrary inferences." State v. Pike , 162 S.W.3d 464 , 473-74 (Mo. banc 2005).

2020In our sufficiency review, “[c]ontrary evidence and inferences are disregarded.” Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624 at 632 .

2016Verweire v. Moore, a case in which a defendant successfully raised a sufficiency of the evidence claim in a habeas corpus action. 211 S.W.3d 89, 91-92 (Mo. banc 2006) (abrogated on other grounds by State v. Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624, 636 (Mo. banc 2016)).

2025Based on the evidence of intoxication presented by the Director, we find that the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Officer had reason to believe Swisher challenge to the admissibility of evidence by way of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge); Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852, 860 (Mo. banc 1993). 11 operated her vehicle while intoxicated.

2025See State v. Hogan, 297 S.W.3d 597, 601 (Mo. App. 2009); State v. Castilleja, 211 S.W.3d 165, 167 (Mo. App. 2007); State v. Cryderman, 230 S.W.3d 370, 374 (Mo. App. 2007).