STATE OF MISSOURI v. RYAN STABENO (2026)

Ryan Stabeno (“Defendant”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction for tampering with a witness in a felony prosecution (§ 575.270).¹ In his sole point on appeal, Defendant claims there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he offered a benefit to a witness in exchange for withholding information regarding other felony charges pending against Defendant at the time. Finding no merit in Defendant's argument, we affirm.

Factual Background and Procedural History

Defendant was arrested on felony charges and transported to the McDonald County Jail on October 23, 2024. On October 30, 2024, an employee of the McDonald County Sheriff's Office, who monitored incoming and outgoing mail at the jail, read a letter sent by Defendant. The letter was addressed from Defendant to his wife and started with “it's me Ryan Stabeno[.]” The letter instructed Defendant's wife to “ask [Neighbor] to drop my charges and we will be even, if you can, if not we can go another way.”

Neighbor was a witness to an alleged incident that resulted in previous felony charges that were already pending against Defendant. Neighbor helped Defendant replace the motor in Defendant's truck and Defendant believed Neighbor owed him money. While Neighbor testified that he never saw Defendant's letter, he was aware that Defendant was upset about some money Defendant was allegedly owed. Neighbor stated that he spoke to Defendant three days before Defendant was arrested and “there was never a money issue” between them.

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of tampering with a witness in a felony prosecution and received a $5,000.00 fine. This appeal followed.

Standard of Review

This Court's review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 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 “accept[ ] as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and ignore[ ] all contrary evidence and inferences.” State v. Lundstrom, 725 S.W.3d 340, 344 (Mo. App. S.D. 2025) (quoting State v. Holmes, 399 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Mo. banc 2013)). “We do not weigh the evidence. Instead, we defer to the fact-finder's superior position to weigh and value the evidence, determine the witnesses’ credibility and resolve any inconsistencies in their testimony.” State v. Wolf, 690 S.W.3d 621, 625 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Analysis

In his sole point on appeal, Defendant claims there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he offered to confer a benefit to Neighbor with the purpose of inducing him to withhold information regarding Defendant's other pending criminal charges.² We disagree.

To establish an individual committed the offense of tampering with a witness, the State must prove:

With the purpose to induce a witness or a prospective witness to disobey a subpoena or other legal process, absent himself or herself, avoid subpoena or other legal process, withhold evidence, information, or documents, or testify falsely, he or she:

(a) Threatens or causes harm to any person or property; or

(b) Uses force, threats or deception; or

(c) Offers, confers or agrees to confer any benefit, direct or indirect, upon such witness; or

(d) Conveys any of the foregoing to another in furtherance of a conspiracy․.

§ 575.270.1(1) (emphasis added).

The evidence in the record is sufficient for a reasonable juror to infer Defendant sent the subject letter with the intent of inducing his wife to discourage Neighbor from assisting as a witness in the prosecution of Defendant's pending felony charges. Defendant's letter directed his wife to ask Neighbor to “drop my charges” and they would be “even[.]” It would be reasonable for the fact-finder to infer from this statement that Defendant's purpose in writing this letter was to offer a benefit to Neighbor (the perceived debt forgiveness) in exchange for Neighbor withholding evidence or information from the authorities. See State v. Beck, 717 S.W.3d 849, 852 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (the jury drew a reasonable inference from the evidence that defendant following witness into the sheriff's department and threatening him was for the purpose of “inducing [witness] to withhold information” regarding defendant's pending criminal case); see also State v. Ware, 447 S.W.3d 224, 226-29 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014) (in bench trial where defendant and her husband took child from school and told child's mother that they would not return child until mother signed a new parenting plan that excluded child support, trial court's inference that such acts were done with the purpose of inducing mother not to testify in father's criminal prosecution for failure to pay child support was reasonable).

Even though Neighbor claims there were no money issues between Neighbor and Defendant, a reasonable juror could infer that Defendant thought there was such an issue and was offering to give Neighbor a benefit by forgiving the perceived debt by saying they would be “even” if Neighbor “drop[ped] my charges[.]” Furthermore, the fact that Neighbor was unaware of the letter and never saw it before he testified is irrelevant; the State only had to prove Defendant's purpose was to induce Neighbor to withhold information. See State v. Hamilton, 673 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023) (State is only required to prove that defendant attempted to prevent the victim from assisting in his prosecution, not that he actually succeeded). Thus, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support that Defendant acted with the purpose of inducing Neighbor to withhold testimony. Point 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 June 25, 2025.

2.   Defendant's argument section includes additional arguments that are not included in Defendant's point relied on and thus does not comply with Rule 84.04(e). State v. Murphy, 665 S.W.3d 377, 379 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). In Defendant's Point Relied On, he claims the trial court erred because “there was insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that [Defendant] offered to confer a benefit to a witness with the purpose to induce the witness to withhold information.” In the argument section of Defendant's brief, he asserts:there was insufficient evidence on three elements․[o]ne, that an offer was conveyed to [Neighbor], who never even knew of the letter written to [Defendant's wife] ․ [s]econd, no benefit was involved in that [Defendant] never brought up a ‘money issue’ with [Neighbor] and ‘[t]here was never a money issue between them’ ․ [t]hird, [Neighbor] testified he saw an ‘incident’ involving [Defendant] but no one connected this incident to any charged conduct.(Emphasis added). The argument that an alleged “incident” was not tied to any charged conduct is not a sufficiency argument contemplated by Defendant's Point Relied On. “Errors raised in the argument portion of a brief but not raised in the points relied on need not be considered by this Court.” State v. Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624, 636 n.13 (Mo. banc 2016) (citing State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm'n v. Dale, 309 S.W.3d 380, 384 n.6 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)).While we are not required to address such argument, we do note that the record reveals that both Neighbor and Captain Chris Allison testified that Defendant was involved in a previous “incident” which led to him being brought into the jail on October 23, 2024. Captain Allison testified that formal charges were filed the next day, and Defendant's October 30, 2024 letter specifically references “charges” to be dropped. A reasonable juror could consider all of this evidence in determining that Defendant had charges pending at the time his letter was sent.

MATTHEW P. HAMNER, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS BRYAN E. NICKELL, J. – CONCURS