## Facts

- Fourteen-year-old Candis West left home around 1:00 a.m. to visit her boyfriend, Brandon Srader, at his house in rural Missouri.
- When West arrived, Srader was not home, but his 19-year-old sister, Norma Barnum, was present; West and Barnum went for a walk.
- After they returned, Srader came back with several other teenagers, including Jessica Griffin and two other girls.
- West learned Srader had been dating Griffin, and Griffin and the other girls formed a plan to take West somewhere and beat her.
- Everyone at the house except West and one boy knew about the plan.
- The group drove together (including West) to a secluded low-water bridge in a rural part of the county.
- At the bridge, the three girls hit and kicked West for an extended period, causing serious injuries, including a broken nose and broken ribs.
- During the assault, West was forced to undress and was thrown into the water; her clothing and jewelry were left behind or thrown into the water.
- Barnum, Srader, and at least one other boy watched the assault.
- Evidence at trial showed Barnum laughed and encouraged the attackers, and near the end yelled for the girls to “just kill her” and to “run over her” with the vehicle.
- The group left West at the bridge and drove away; West later received medical treatment for her injuries.
- Missouri charged Barnum with first-degree assault under § 565.050, RSMo, on an accomplice-liability theory.
- A jury convicted Barnum and the court sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment; Barnum appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Barnum’s conviction for first-degree assault as an accomplice based on her conduct during the attack.
2. Whether unobjected-to statements during voir dire about a defendant’s right not to testify constituted plain error requiring reversal.
3. Whether unobjected-to victim-impact testimony by West constituted plain error requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri (en banc) held the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Barnum guilty of first-degree assault as an accomplice.
- The court held the voir dire comments about the right not to testify did not result in plain error.
- The court held the victim-impact testimony did not result in plain error.
- The court affirmed Barnum’s conviction and ten-year sentence.

## Legal Principles

- On appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence, the court considers the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and disregards contrary evidence and inferences.
- Under Missouri accomplice liability, a defendant may be convicted for an offense committed by others if the defendant, with the required mental state, aids or encourages the commission of the offense; presence alone is not enough, but affirmative encouragement can support liability.
- A defendant’s knowledge of a planned assault, continued presence during its commission, and verbal encouragement can permit a jury to infer intent to assist and shared purpose with the principal offenders.
- Claims not preserved by objection at trial are reviewed, if at all, only for plain error, which requires error that produces manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.
- Comments in voir dire concerning the right not to testify, when reviewed only for plain error, warrant relief only if they are so prejudicial in context that they create manifest injustice.
- Victim-impact testimony admitted without objection will be reversed under plain-error review only if its admission was so prejudicial that it caused manifest injustice.

## Conclusion

State v. Barnum affirmed a first-degree assault conviction where the defendant was prosecuted as an accomplice rather than as a direct assailant. The Missouri Supreme Court held that Barnum’s knowledge of the plan, her presence throughout the beating, and her laughter and verbal encouragement—including urging the attackers to “just kill her” and “run over her”—were enough for a reasonable jury to find she aided or encouraged the assault. The court also rejected, under plain-error review, Barnum’s unpreserved claims that voir dire comments about the right not to testify and victim-impact testimony required reversal, and it therefore affirmed the judgment and ten-year sentence.


State v. Barnum, 14 S.W.3d 587 (2000)