Background
Nicholas Rinehart was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree stalking and driving while intoxicated. During his December 2022 DWI arrest, Rinehart threatened a correctional officer’s son while awaiting hospital transport. More than an hour later, while at the hospital, he made another comment to a different officer that the correctional officer should watch his child.
The circuit court found Rinehart was a chronic DWI offender based on four prior intoxication-related traffic offenses and a persistent offender based on two prior felony convictions. It sentenced him to 10 years for DWI and five consecutive years for stalking, for a total of 15 years.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The two threats were sufficiently separated in time and place to constitute two distinct acts and therefore a “course of conduct” for first-degree stalking. The court distinguished a case involving uninterrupted threats during an arrest and transport, noting that Rinehart was separated from the victim for more than an hour before the hospital statement.
The court also held that records concerning Rinehart’s 2004 Festus municipal DWI supplied sufficient evidence that the conviction involved driving or operating a vehicle, rather than mere physical control. Finally, although the trial court rather than a jury made the enhancement findings, Rinehart did not preserve his claims under Erlinger and did not show that a jury would have reached a different result. He therefore failed to establish outcome-determinative plain error.
Key Takeaways
- Threats separated by more than an hour and occurring at different locations can establish stalking’s required course of conduct.
- A municipal DWI citation describing the conduct as operating or driving can support chronic-offender treatment.
- An unpreserved Erlinger challenge requires a showing that the jury likely would have rejected the enhancement facts.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Missouri’s post-Erlinger plain-error framework to sentencing enhancements: an asserted jury-finding error alone is not enough for reversal absent a showing that it affected the result. It also illustrates the factual proof that may establish a prior municipal DWI as a qualifying intoxication-related traffic offense.