State Supreme Court takes on double jeopardy case

A man who was found guilty of tampering with a motor vehicle for the same incident in two counties is arguing that one of these charges should be dismissed on double jeopardy grounds. The state’s highest court is weighing his case.

Brian Heathcock is appealing his convictions of: “Tampering with a motor vehicle in the first degree, E-felony resisting arrest and attempted tampering with a victim,” according to his brief for the court. He was convicted of these crimes in a Warren County jury trial but also pleaded guilty and was sentenced for tampering with a motor vehicle in the first degree, in Montgomery County.

“The trial court erred in entering a judgment of conviction and sentencing Mr. Heathcock on the charge of Tampering with a Motor Vehicle in the First Degree, because this denied Mr. Heathcock his rights to be free from double jeopardy and multiple punishments for the same offense, pursuant to US. Const. amends. V and XIV; Mo. Const. Art. I, Section 19 and Section 556.041, RSMo,” according to Heathcock’s attorney, Justine R. Finney of the Columbia Public Defender’s Office.

Heathcock was sentenced to 10 years on the Warren County charges and three years in Montgomery County, according to his brief. Finney is asking the court to vacate “Heathcock’s first-degree tampering conviction on Count I and order him discharged from that sentence.”

The state argues the lower court did not err in its judgement because Heathcock committed two separate offenses.

“Defendant’s conviction for first degree tampering committed in Warren County did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause in that Defendant committed two separate acts of unlawful operation of the same vehicle, one in Montgomery County, when he took the vehicle from Girlfriend, and one in Warren County when fled from police, each act requiring a separate mens rea,” according to the brief.

During Feb. 25 oral arguments before the court, Finney argued Heathcock’s actions in both counties were one continuous action.

“He didn’t form a new intent to do something else with it. He hadn’t decided to give it back and take it again,” she said. “His intent remained constant and continuous and that was just to have a car that wasn’t his.”

The state said Heathcock formed a new mens rea for each act.

“Missouri law is very clear that if the defendant commits two separate acts in violation of the same statute, forms a new Mens Rea for each act, that he can be prosecuted for each such act, even though it is in violation of the same statute,” Evan Buchheim of the Attorney General’s Office in Jefferson City said. “What we have here is the defendant committing the act of unlawful operation in Montgomery County when he takes the car away from his girlfriend and leaves her stranded by the side of the road. That’s one act of unlawful operation and that’s how he was charged under this under the tampering statute. Then some four hours later, he commits a second act of unlawful operation, tampering in Warren County, when he flees from the officers.”

The case is: State of Missouri v. Brian K. Heathcock, Case no: SC100734.