Missouri Supreme Court Establishes Substantial Step Standard for Criminal Attempt

Introduction

In the landmark case of State of Missouri v. Bryan E. Wurtzberger (40 S.W.3d 893), the Supreme Court of Missouri addressed significant issues pertaining to the legal standards for criminal attempts and the procedural requirements for preserving errors during a trial. This case involves the appellant, Bryan E. Wurtzberger, who was convicted of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, a controlled substance, under Missouri law. The primary issues on appeal revolved around the adequacy of jury instructions regarding the nature of the criminal attempt and the appellate court's ability to review errors that were not objected to during the trial.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the conviction of Bryan E. Wurtzberger. The appellant had been found guilty by a jury for his role in attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, based on evidence that included the purchase of precursor chemicals and the presence of equipment used in the "Nazi" method of meth production. On appeal, Wurtzberger challenged the trial court's jury instructions concerning the definition of "attempt" and argued that these errors constituted plain error that warranted reversal of his conviction. The Court held that although there was an erroneous jury instruction related to the legal definition of an attempt, the appellant failed to preserve this error by not objecting during the trial. Furthermore, the Court found that the error did not result in manifest injustice, thereby affirming the lower court's judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several key precedents that shaped its decision:

• STATE v. BARNUM: Established that Missouri does not distinguish between principals and accessories in criminal liability, meaning all parties acting in concert to commit a crime are equally liable.
• STATE v. CLAY: Affirmed that evidence showing affirmative participation in aiding the principal to commit a crime is sufficient for conviction.
• STATE v. REYES: Previously adopted the common-law approach to defining "attempt," which the Court later overruled in STATE v. WITHROW.
• STATE v. WITHROW: Overruled STATE v. REYES, establishing that Missouri follows a "substantial step" analysis for criminal attempts, moving away from the traditional common-law elements.
• STATE v. MARTINDALE and STATE v. BRADSHAW: Addressed the interplay between procedural rules concerning error preservation and the ability to seek appellate review under plain error.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on two main issues: the proper definition of a criminal attempt under Missouri law and the procedural requirements for preserving errors for appellate review.

Regarding the definition of a criminal attempt, the Court highlighted that Missouri had transitioned from the traditional common-law elements to a "substantial step" standard, as clarified in STATE v. WITHROW. This approach requires that an individual's actions must constitute a substantial step toward the commission of the offense, demonstrating a firm intent to carry out the criminal act.

On procedural grounds, the Court analyzed whether the appellant’s failure to object to the jury instruction precluded appellate review. Under Rule 28.03, specific objections must be made to preserve errors for appeal. However, the Court noted that Rule 30.20 allows for consideration of plain errors affecting substantial rights in cases of manifest injustice, even if no objection was raised during the trial. Ultimately, the Court found that the appellant did not meet the criteria for relief under Rule 30.20 because the error in jury instruction did not result in manifest injustice.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for both criminal law and appellate practice in Missouri:

• Clarification of Attempt: By affirming the "substantial step" standard for criminal attempts, the Court solidifies Missouri’s alignment with modern statutory approaches, moving away from the traditional common-law elements.
• Appellate Procedure: The decision underscores the importance of preserving errors through timely objections during trial. However, it also delineates the narrow circumstances under which plain error can be considered, emphasizing that not all unpreserved errors warrant appellate relief.
• Accomplice Liability: Affirming that there is no distinction between principals and accessories for liability reinforces the broad scope of criminal responsibility in conspiratorial actions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To enhance understanding, here are explanations of some complex legal concepts addressed in the judgment:

• Plain Error: A legal standard that allows appellate courts to review errors not preserved by the parties if the error is clear or obvious and affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.
• Substantial Step: An action that goes beyond mere preparation and indicates a firm intention to commit a crime. It is a significant move towards completing the criminal act.
• Manifest Injustice: A clear and obvious error that affects the fundamental fairness of the trial, potentially leading to a wrongful conviction or acquittal.
• Rule 28.03: A procedural rule requiring parties to make specific objections to trial court rulings to preserve issues for appellate review.
• Rule 30.20: A rule permitting appellate courts to consider plain errors that affect substantial rights even if they were not raised during the trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Missouri's decision in State v. Wurtzberger reaffirms the state's commitment to a modern understanding of criminal attempts, emphasizing the "substantial step" requirement. Additionally, the Court clarifies procedural boundaries concerning error preservation, highlighting the limited scope of plain error review. This case serves as a critical reference for both criminal practitioners and appellate lawyers in Missouri, emphasizing the necessity for precise jury instructions and the importance of objecting to potential errors during trial to safeguard against unjust convictions.