Admissible Evidence in Sufficiency Review: Consideration of All Admitted Evidence, Not Just That Published to the Jury

Introduction

State of Missouri v. Anthony Tate is a 2025 decision by the Supreme Court of Missouri addressing two primary issues on appeal from a jury’s conviction for first-degree murder, first-degree assault, weapons offenses, and armed criminal action. Defendant Anthony Tate shot into a vehicle parked in a barbershop lot, killing one passenger (T.S.) and injuring two others (A.H. and M.E.). At trial, Tate was convicted of first-degree assault with serious physical injury and other offenses. On appeal, he challenged (1) the sufficiency of evidence supporting the first-degree assault convictions and (2) the circuit court’s failure to intervene sua sponte to correct the prosecutor’s closing argument and to strike parts of a detective’s testimony as inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying how appellate courts must treat evidence admitted at trial and defining the contours of plain-error review for unpreserved claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Missouri unanimously affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. On the sufficiency issue, the Court held that the State presented ample evidence that Tate “knowingly caused serious physical injury” to both A.H. and M.E., thereby supporting first-degree assault convictions under sections 565.050.1–2. In doing so, the Court recognized that “protracted loss or impairment” of a body part’s function may be established by hospital records, surveillance footage, and medical testimony. Critically, the Court rejected the notion that only evidence “published” to the jury may be considered on sufficiency review; instead, all evidence admitted at trial—whether physically shown to the jury or merely offered into the record—must be evaluated.

As to unpreserved claims, the Court applied Rule 30.20’s plain-error standard, concluding that neither the prosecutor’s inadvertent “acquittal-first” phrasing in closing argument nor the detective’s hearsay-tinged testimony caused a “manifest injustice.” Tate’s defense strategy of misidentification further diluted any potential prejudice.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Jackson v. Virginia (443 U.S. 307): Established the test for appellate sufficiency review—whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Boyd (659 S.W.3d 914): Reaffirmed deference owed to juries and the “light most favorable to the verdict” standard in Missouri.
State v. Minor (648 S.W.3d 721): Confirmed that appellate courts must ignore contrary evidence and all reasonable inferences favor the verdict.
State v. Nowicki (682 S.W.3d 410): Warned against reliance on speculative or forced inferences in sufficiency analysis.
State v. Hall (561 S.W.3d 449): Defined “protracted loss or impairment” as more than momentary diminution of function.
State v. Ross (939 S.W.2d 15): Held that use of crutches for a week and follow-up appointments suffice for protracted impairment.
State v. Baker (859 S.W.2d 805): Distinguished pain alone (aching in bad weather) from genuine impairment of function.
State v. Bruce (53 S.W.3d 195): Recognized that immobilization and tendon repair in the hand produce serious physical injury.
Musacchio v. United States (577 U.S. 237): Articulated that the sufficiency question is whether record evidence is strong enough to go to the jury.
State v. Hogan (297 S.W.3d 597), Castilleja (211 S.W.3d 165), Cryderman (230 S.W.3d 370): Formerly held unpublished evidence could not be considered in sufficiency review—now overruled.
State v. Johnson (599 S.W.3d 222): Identified “acquittal-first” closing argument as impermissible.
Rule 30.20: Governs plain-error review of unpreserved claims in Missouri criminal appeals.
State v. Baxter (204 S.W.3d 650) and State v. Wood (580 S.W.3d 566): Emphasized the high bar for showing manifest injustice from improper argument.

2. Legal Reasoning

Sufficiency of the Evidence: Under § 565.050.1, to convict for first-degree assault, the State must prove defendant knowingly caused serious physical injury. Serious physical injury includes “protracted loss or impairment” (§ 556.061(28)(3)). The Court applied Ross and Hall to find that A.H.’s reliance on crutches and altered gait, and M.E.’s splinted hand and painful knee sutures, constituted impairments lasting beyond a moment, more than transient pain. All evidence—hospital records, photos, video surveillance, ballistics, and medical testimony—when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, supported a rational juror’s finding of serious physical injury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scope of Reviewable Evidence: The Court held that once evidence is admitted at trial without limitation, it becomes part of the “record evidence” for sufficiency review—even if not physically published to the jury. This corrects and overrules Missouri cases (Hogan, Castilleja, Cryderman) that drew an artificial line between “published” and “unpublished” evidence.

Unpreserved Claims and Plain-Error: Under Rule 30.20, a defendant must show “manifest injustice” from the trial error. Two alleged errors were analyzed:

Acquittal-First Argument: The prosecutor’s statement that the jury could consider murder in the second degree “only if” it found Tate not guilty of first-degree murder was a misstatement of law per Johnson. Yet Tate’s misidentification defense meant the remark was unlikely to sway the verdict on degree of culpability. No manifest injustice arose.
Detective’s Hearsay Testimony: The detective testified about his inference from cell-site data implicating Tate via his cousin. Although arguably hearsay, defense counsel elicited contradictory evidence and Tate’s own testimony undermined any potential prejudice. The omission of a sua sponte strike did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

3. Impact

This decision has significant ramifications for Missouri appellate practice:

Sufficiency Review Doctrine: Appellate courts must consider the entire body of evidence admitted at trial, not merely what was shown to jurors in the jury room. This streamlines analysis and prevents appellate gamesmanship over “published” versus “admitted.”
Trial Strategy and Unpreserved Errors: Defense attorneys should still object in real time, but appellate courts will be less willing to second-guess strategic choices like failure to request corrective instructions or strike testimony unless prejudice is clear and outcome-determinative.
Protracted Impairment Standard: The reaffirmation of Ross and Hall sharpens the contours of what constitutes a class A assault under § 565.050.2, especially in shooting cases involving limb injuries.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sufficiency of the Evidence: Appellate courts ask: “Could any reasonable jury, viewing all admitted evidence favorably to the prosecution, find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?” (Jackson-Virginia test.)
Protracted Loss or Impairment: Not permanent, but more than brief pain. For example, needing crutches for days or a splinted hand immobilized for follow-up care.
Published vs. Admitted Evidence: Published means physically shown to jurors; admitted means formally received into the record. The Court now says all admitted evidence counts on sufficiency review.
Plain Error (Rule 30.20): Unpreserved errors can be reviewed only if they produce “manifest injustice” or a “miscarriage of justice”—a high threshold requiring more than a minor slip.
Acquittal-First Argument: A prosecutor’s phrasing that requires a unanimous “not guilty” on a greater offense before considering a lesser one can improperly influence jurors’ approach to lesser-included charges.

Conclusion

State v. Tate establishes a key precedent in Missouri criminal appellate law: all evidence admitted at trial, whether published to the jury or not, must be weighed for sufficiency of the evidence review. This decision clarifies the “record evidence” for Jackson-Virginia analysis and rejects former limitations that invited appeals over technicalities. The Court reaffirms the standard for protracted impairment in first-degree assault and underscores that appellate relief for unobjected-to errors is available only upon a clear showing of manifest injustice. Together, these rulings will guide trial practitioners in evidentiary strategy and shape how future Missouri appeals evaluate the sufficiency of evidence and the plain-error doctrine.