STATE OF MISSOURI v. JAMES ANDREW MERRITT (2026)

James Andrew Merritt (“Defendant”) appeals his convictions for second-degree murder (§ 565.021); armed criminal action (§ 571.015); tampering with physical evidence in a felony prosecution (§ 575.100); and trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation (§ 566.209).¹ Defendant raises three points on appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that (1) Victim's murder occurred in Missouri, (2) Defendant committed the underlying offense necessary to convict him of armed criminal

action, and (3) Defendant received a “thing of value” as required by the statute for the offense of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. Because there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts, we affirm.

Factual Background and Procedural History

On March 26, 2020, Keith Kelly (“Kelly”) was mushroom hunting in Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge in Ullin, Illinois, when he saw a blue suitcase with insects around it. Kelly unzipped the suitcase and noticed blonde hair inside and a foul odor. He called the police department and officers responded on the scene.

Law enforcement secured the suitcase in a body bag and transported it for an autopsy. Upon opening the suitcase, Victim's body was found inside with moderate putrefactive changes. During the autopsy, there were several lacerations on Victim's scalp consistent with blunt force trauma. There was also hemorrhaging into the soft tissues around the lacerations indicating Victim was alive at the time the lacerations were made. Victim's cause of death was determined to be blunt trauma of the head resulting in scalp lacerations and a skull fracture.

Victim was identified and found to have had a history of posting ads for prostitution services online. Victim was also a frequent social media user and posted often. Starting January 22, 2020, she had begun posting from a new IP address traced to Defendant's home in Morehouse, Missouri. Her posting stopped on January 25, 2020. Master Sergeant Christopher Hamlett (“Sergeant Hamlett”) of the Missouri Highway Patrol went to Defendant's home and made contact with Defendant on April 15, 2020.

During the encounter, Defendant seemed “well-versed in the world of prostitutes” and showed law enforcement multiple payments for prostitution services. Defendant admitted Victim had been living with him in the days before her death. Defendant admitted he would drive Victim to different locations in Sikeston and Cape Girardeau to meet with clients. Defendant would also pick her up afterwards. Defendant admitted he had sex with Victim, but denied paying her for the sex. Defendant's lifestyle led Sergeant Hamlett to believe Defendant was acting as Victim's “pimp” and facilitating Victim's prostitution activity.

Defendant had security cameras installed around his residence. He claimed he did not install these until after January 25, 2020, when Victim left his home. However, law enforcement obtained a video file from Defendant's phone indicating the security cameras were installed prior to Victim arriving at Defendant's home. Law enforcement was unable to obtain earlier security footage because the video recording device (“DVR”) such footage was stored on was found severely damaged at Defendant's mother's home.

A “burn pile” was found in Defendant's backyard. Among the items recovered from the burn pile were a mattress, a pumice stone, hair barrettes, handcuffs, and a broken glass smoking pipe. Law enforcement also found an area in the back of Defendant's vehicle that had a lighter color, like it was scrubbed with bleach. A video recording showed Defendant purchasing bleach from the Morehouse Dollar General on January 26, 2020, the day after Victim went missing. His receipt from that day further confirmed Defendant purchased the bleach. Law enforcement measured the area in Defendant's vehicle that had been scrubbed with bleach and it was consistent with the measurements of the suitcase.

Defendant's girlfriend at the time, Megan Sellers (“Sellers”), testified she met up with Defendant on January 25, 2020, in the Hobby Lobby parking lot in Cape Girardeau. Sellers said she saw a dark suitcase in the back of Defendant's car that caught her attention. When Sellers asked him about it, Defendant said his nephews were staying at his house for the weekend. Sellers also witnessed Defendant, Defendant's sister, and Defendant's brother-in-law destroying the DVR – that was found severely damaged at Defendant's mother's home – shortly after Defendant's first interview with the police on April 16, 2020.

Defendant was arrested on April 20, 2020. Sergeant Hamlett testified Defendant was arrested because an analysis of Defendant's cellular device showed it pinged the spot where Victim's body was found near the Cypress Creek National Wildlife Reserve in Illinois on January 25, 2020, despite Defendant telling police he had not travelled to Illinois. This date was the last date Victim was active on social media or on any of her devices.

Cell Phone Data

Cell phone data analysis also showed that Defendant's device and Victim's device traveled to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, at the same time on January 25, 2020. Defendant's device returned back to Morehouse, Missouri, before moving parallel to U.S. Highway 55, then U.S. Highway 60, and then I-57 in Missouri and Illinois. From 5:00pm to 5:30pm on January 25, 2020, Defendant's cell phone used cell towers in the Cypress Creek Wildlife National Reserve. However, Victim's device stayed in Cape Girardeau for approximately 47 hours before it pinged one last time in Jackson, Missouri, on January 27, 2020. Victim's last originating phone activity was on January 25, 2020, at 5:23am. Law enforcement hypothesized that the phone had been thrown away because it was in Cape Girardeau until the next trash pickup day (Monday), after which it pinged in Jackson, where the trash transfer station for this area was located.

Google Data

Corporal Matt Foster (“Corporal Foster”) of the Missouri State Highway Patrol testified that he obtained Defendant's Google history. Defendant's Google records showed several screenshots of Victim's account on the online platform where she posted ads for her prostitution services. The history also showed a deletion of his location data from Defendant's Google Maps application from January 25, 2020 to January 26, 2020. This deletion request was made from Defendant's account on February 1, 2020.

That same day, Defendant used Google Street View to look at images of two schools in Illinois, one of which was close by where Victim's body was found. One image Defendant viewed on Google Street View could not have “gotten any closer to where [Victim] was found two turns away from this [intersection] using Google Street View” as of February 1, 2020. Defendant deleted his activities on Google Street View on February 2, 2020. Defendant also looked at the area where Victim's body was found in the Cypress Creek National Wildlife Reserve on Google Maps on April 9, 2020.

At the close of all the evidence, the jury convicted Defendant of the lesser offense of second-degree murder and the remaining counts as charged.² Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for his murder conviction with the sentences for the remaining counts to run consecutively. This appeal followed.

Standard of Review

This Court's review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “limited to a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Yaggy, 704 S.W.3d 418, 422 (Mo. App. S.D. 2025) (quoting State v. Fears, 217 S.W.3d 323, 328 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007)). We consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and the State is granted all reasonable inferences. Id. (citing State v. McKenzie, 599 S.W.3d 269, 273 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020)). We give great deference to the trier of fact and do not re-weigh the evidence. Id. (citing State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 425 (Mo. banc 2008)) (citing State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 52 (Mo. banc 1998)). When considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “circumstantial evidence is given the same weight as direct evidence.” State v. Hanks, 697 S.W.3d 625, 628 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (citing State v. Alexander, 505 S.W.3d 384, 393 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016)). While circumstantial evidence is given the same weight as direct evidence, we “will not supply missing evidence or give the [S]tate the benefit of reasonable, speculative or forced inferences.” State v. Salsman, 686 S.W.3d 376, 390 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (quoting State v. Langdon, 110 S.W.3d 807, 811-12 (Mo. banc 2003)).

Analysis

Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Murder and Armed Criminal Action

In Defendant's first two points on appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action because he claims there is insufficient evidence to support that Victim's murder occurred in Missouri.³

Under § 565.021,

[a] person commits the offense of murder in the second degree if he or she, causes the death of another person; or (1) [k]nowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person; or (2) [c]ommits or attempts to commit any felony, and, in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony or in the flight from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony or immediate flight from the perpetration of such felony or attempted perpetration of such felony.

Missouri courts have jurisdiction to enforce a criminal law only “if any element of the crime occurs within the state.” State v. Hicks, 526 S.W.3d 273, 275 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017); § 541.191. “The standard of proof required to establish jurisdiction in a criminal case has not been definitively resolved in Missouri.” State v. Allen, 536 S.W.3d 241, 245 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). However, this Court will review “a claim of insufficient evidence to establish that the crime occurred in Missouri under the same standard that we apply to a claim of insufficient evidence.” Hicks, 526 S.W.3d at 275 (citing State v. Williams, 455 S.W.3d 1, 5-6 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013)).

In Allen, the court reversed and remanded the defendant's conviction because there was no evidence at all that the crime took place in Missouri. 536 S.W.3d at 246-47. Witnesses only testified about events that took place in Arkansas, and the Eastern District held that any inferences that Defendant stole the truck in Missouri would therefore be speculative. Id. The instant case is distinguishable from Allen in that there is evidence that supports reasonable, unspeculative inferences that Defendant committed the murder in Missouri.

Victim's last text message and last originating phone activity both occurred in Missouri during the early morning of January 25, 2020. Sellers testified she saw Defendant with the suitcase in the back of his car in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, that same day. The following day, Defendant purchased bleach and bleach stains were found in the back of his vehicle where Sellers saw the suitcase. Defendant destroyed the DVR player that recorded video footage at his home in Missouri after the first visit from law enforcement in April 2020, and also deleted his Google Maps data from January 25-26, 2020. Further, Defendant burned Victim's belongings, the mattress she slept on and other evidence at his home in Missouri.

On this record, this case is more comparable to State v. Hicks and State v. Williams in that there is sufficient evidence to determine the crime took place in Missouri. In Hicks, the court held “[w]hile the trial court did not make a specific finding as to jurisdiction, we can reasonably infer from the court's finding of guilt that the court found that the State had established all elements of the crime, including jurisdiction.” 526 S.W.3d at 277. The court also held that the defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the crime took place in Missouri and there was no need to decide the definitive standard of proof for jurisdiction in Missouri. Id. In Williams, the court stated that it did not need to decide the issue of what standard of proof is appropriate for establishing jurisdiction in a criminal case because “we are convinced that the evidence adduced here was sufficient under the highest standard – beyond a reasonable doubt – to establish that Missouri has jurisdiction.” 455 S.W.3d at 6.

Similarly to Hicks and Williams, the evidence in this case is sufficient for a reasonable juror to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the murder took place in Missouri. Because the evidence meets this higher standard, we need not determine what specific standard of proof is applicable. While much of the evidence in this case is circumstantial, it is nonetheless sufficient to support the convictions for both murder and armed criminal action. See Hanks, 697 S.W.3d at 628 (quoting Alexander, 505 S.W.3d at 393) (“The State may meet its burden of proof by presenting․circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime”); see also Salsman, 686 S.W.3d at 390 (quoting State v. Jackson, 681 S.W.3d 248, 258 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023)) (“Circumstantial rather than direct evidence of a fact is sufficient to support a verdict”). Points I and II are denied.

Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Trafficking for Purposes of Sexual Exploitation

In Defendant's third point on appeal, he claims there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation because he did not receive a “thing of value” as required under the statute.

Based upon Instruction No. 15, the jury found Defendant guilty of “knowingly provid[ing] housing and transportation for [Victim], a person whom he knew to be a prostitute ․ with the purpose of allowing [Victim] to perform commercial sex acts” and “benefitt[ing] from his participation in these activities by receiving sexual intercourse from [Victim] without paying her[.]”

Under § 566.209,

[a] person commits the crime of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation if a person knowingly recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, advertises the availability of or obtains by any means, including but not limited to through the use of force, abduction, coercion, fraud, deception, blackmail, or causing or threatening to cause financial harm, another person for the use of employment of such person in a commercial sex act, sexual conduct, a sexual performance, or the production of explicit sexual material as defined in section 573.010, without his or her consent, or benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in such activities.

As § 566.209 does not define what “anything of value” means in the context of the statute, we may look to the dictionary definition to determine the phrase's plain and ordinary meaning. State v. Lundstrom, 725 S.W.3d 340, 349 (Mo. App. S.D. 2025) (citing Henry Cnty. v. Dunn, 700 S.W.3d 320, 323 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024)). “Anything” as it is used in the statute is defined as “any thing whatever; any such thing.”⁴ “Of” is defined as “used as a function word to indicate a characteristic or distinctive quality or possession.”⁵ “Value” is defined as “an equivalent in goods, services or money for something exchanged” or “relative worth, utility, or importance.”⁶ Sergeant Hamlett testified during trial that Defendant had sex with Victim without paying her. He also testified that, based on Defendant's lifestyle, Defendant seemed “well-versed” in the world of prostitution and frequently paid for prostitution services. Victim lived with Defendant at the time and he frequently provided her transportation to meet clients.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and the ordinary meaning of “anything of value,” a reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the sex received by Defendant constituted something “of value” in exchange for facilitating Victim's sex work activity. As the evidence suggested that Defendant had paid for sex in the past, it would not have been unreasonable for the jury to infer that such activities with Victim would also have been a thing “of value.” While we have found no Missouri case interpreting this phrase, our holding is consistent with how the Eighth Circuit has interpreted the phrase under federal law. See U.S. v. Cook, 782 F.3d 983, 988 (8th Cir. 2015) (“The phrase ‘anything of value’ is extremely broad. Reading the phrase to include sex acts comports with both its ordinary meaning ․ and its settled legal meaning.”) (internal citations omitted)). Point III is denied.

Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo 2016, as amended through January 24, 2024.

2.   Defendant does not challenge his conviction for tampering with physical evidence on appeal.

3.   We review Defendant's first and second points on appeal together because they are intertwined. Defendant's second point claims that if there is insufficient evidence to support the murder conviction as the underlying crime, then there is also insufficient evidence to support the armed criminal action conviction.

4.   Anything, MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anything (last visited 3/10/2026).

5.   Of, MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of (last visited 3/10/2026).

6.   Value, MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value (last visited 3/10/2026).

MATTHEW P. HAMNER, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS