Opinion ID: 2337648
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motions for judgment of acquittal and in entering judgment against him because there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate review is limited to determining whether there is enough evidence such that a reasonable juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo. banc 2002). In applying this standard, this Court accepts all evidence favorable to the State as true, including all favorable inferences drawn from the evidence. Id. at 407. It will disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Id. at 408. Defendant sets forth two arguments to support his contention that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. First, he asserts that he is not an employer, and the State failed to prove that he had any personal duty to acquire workers' compensation insurance for the employees working at Corporation. Individuals can be liable for corporate conduct. A person is criminally liable for conduct constituting an offense which he performs or causes to be performed in the name of or in behalf of a corporation . . . to the same extent as if such conduct were performed in his own name or behalf. Section 562.061. Under the workers' compensation laws, individuals are included in the definition of employer. See section 287.030.1(1) (defining an employer as [e]very person . . . using the service of another for pay.). If Defendant had employed five or more people in his individual capacity, the failure to carry workers' compensation insurance would constitute an offense. See section 287.128.5. Thus, under section 562.061, Defendant is liable for Corporation's failure to provide insurance to its employees. Second, Defendant argues that the State failed to prove that he acted or engaged in any prohibited conduct in that the failure to provide workers' compensation insurance does not constitute conduct. Criminal liability is based on conduct involving a voluntary act. Section 562.011.1. A voluntary act includes [a]n omission to perform an act of which the actor is physically capable. Section 562.011.2(2). However, a person is not guilty of an offense based solely upon an omission to perform an act unless the law defining the offense expressly so provides, or a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law. Section 562.011.4. It is clear that an employer's failure to insure his liability as set forth under the workers' compensation laws is an offense. See section 287.128.5. Defendant contends, however, that the word conduct as used in section 562.061 does not include a failure to act because the statute does not use the omission to perform language as contained in section 562.011. Defendant is essentially arguing that the meaning of the word conduct varies in the different sections of chapter 562. Such an argument goes against the rule that provisions in a legislative act are to be construed together, not read in isolation. Bachtel v. Miller County Nursing Home Dist., 110 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Mo. banc 2003). Additionally, if it is possible, the provisions should be harmonized with each other. Id. Applying these principles, conduct, as used in both sections 562.061 and 562.011, includes the failure to act, and further, Defendant, as an individual, can be liable for the failure to act as set forth by section 562.011. Defendant fails to demonstrate that there was an insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment against him. As Corporation's president, he admitted to an investigator that Corporation had not carried insurance since February 2003. [7] Additionally, Corporation's quarterly wage reports showed that it had five to six employees in 2003 and five employees in 2004. The trial court did not err in overruling Defendant's motions and in entering judgment, because there was sufficient evidence such that a reasonable juror could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.