STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v DAVID JOHN AINSWORTH, Appellant

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: SD38491
• Status: Published

Opinion

In Division

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent, ) No. SD38491 ) v. ) Filed: June 13, 2025 ) DAVID JOHN AINSWORTH, ) ) Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POLK COUNTY

Honorable Michael O. Hendrickson, Judge

AFFIRMED Introduction

Following a bench trial, David John Ainsworth was convicted of driving without

a valid license (a class E felony) and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident (a

class A misdemeanor).1 In one point on appeal, Ainsworth argues there was insufficient

evidence to support his conviction for driving without a license because the evidence did

not demonstrate he was driving on a public road. We find the evidence and its reasonable

1 See §§302.020.1(1) and 577.060. All statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp. (2022). All Rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2025). available inferences are sufficient to conclude Ainsworth was driving on a public road.

As such, we deny Ainsworth's point, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

It is uncontested in this appeal that Ainsworth backed into a parked car on a

private drive at a residence outside of Pleasant Hope, Missouri. A surveillance camera at

the scene recorded the accident. Ainsworth—alone—got out of his car, looked at the

damage to Victim's parked vehicle for approximately two minutes, and then drove off.

Authorities were alerted and approximately three hours after the incident, they found

Ainsworth—again alone—with his car in a convenience store parking lot in Pleasant

Hope. At that time, Ainsworth admitted to rear-ending Victim's vehicle, and said he had,

in the interim, been attempting to fix the damage to his car and obtain money to repair

Victim's vehicle.

Ainsworth was charged with driving without a valid license, and leaving the scene

of an accident. Ainsworth waived his right to trial by jury, and following a bench trial (at

which he presented no evidence), the trial court found him guilty of both offenses. The

trial court sentenced Ainsworth to three years' imprisonment as to driving without a

license and one year's imprisonment as to leaving the scene of an accident, with the

sentences to be served concurrently.

In one point on appeal, Ainsworth challenges there was insufficient evidence to

support his conviction for driving without a license, in that there was no evidence that he

was driving on a public road.

2 Standard of Review

"When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, this Court must

determine whether sufficient evidence permits a reasonable juror to find guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt." State v. Boyd, 659 S.W.3d 914, 925 (Mo. banc 2023) (internal

citation omitted). "In making that determination, great deference is given to the trier of

fact, and an appellate court will not weigh the evidence anew." Id. (internal citation

omitted). When determining whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support a

conviction and withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal, the evidence and all

reasonable inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the outcome, and all

contrary evidence and inferences are ignored. State v. Minor, 648 S.W.3d 721, 736 (Mo.

banc 2022). This Court however, cannot "supply missing evidence or give the state the

benefit of unreasonable, speculative, or forced inferences." State v. Nowicki, 682 S.W.3d

410, 418 (Mo. banc 2024) (internal citation omitted).

Analysis

Ainsworth argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for

driving without a license. He concedes he lacked a driver's license at the time of the

events underlying the now challenged conviction, and that "Ainsworth struck the

[Victim's] parked vehicle in a private driveway and left[,]" but suggests "the record

contains no direct proof that [Ainsworth] ever drove on a public highway - an essential

element of" the crime of driving without a license. (Emphasis added).

Section 302.020 sets out the crime of operating a vehicle without a license, and in

relevant part directs: "[I]t shall be unlawful for any person . . . to . . . [o]perate any

vehicle upon any highway in this state unless the person has a valid license[.]"

3 § 302.020.1(1). "Highway" is defined as "any public thoroughfare for vehicles, including

state roads, county roads and public streets, avenues, boulevards, parkways, or alleys in

any municipality[.]" § 302.010(7) (emphasis added).

The credited testimony of law enforcement and Victim both reflected the contents

of a video recording of the incident, wherein Ainsworth is seen backing up into Victim's

car in Victim's private drive. Ainsworth could also be seen getting out of his car, looking

at the damage to Victim's parked vehicle for approximately two minutes, and then driving

off. It is undisputed Ainsworth was the driver of his vehicle at that time.

Testimony at trial further reflected that approximately three hours after the

incident, law enforcement found Ainsworth—along with his damaged car—in the

parking lot of a convenience store. Ainsworth admitted to crashing into Victim's car, and

claimed that in the interim he was "at a friend's house fixing the damage on his vehicle,

and he was attempting to go to an ATM or the bank" to pay Victim for repairs. Credited

testimony from a police officer also reflected the only way Ainsworth's car could have

reached the convenience store was via a public road.

To be clear, the State's case may be proven by direct evidence, circumstantial

evidence alone, or a combination of the two. See State v. Roy, 597 S.W.3d 710, 730

(Mo. App. S.D. 2020) ("Upon appellate review, circumstantial evidence is given the same

weight as direct evidence and the fact finder may make reasonable inferences from the

evidence presented.") (internal citation omitted).

As the United States Supreme Court has indicated:

Circumstantial evidence . . . is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a [factfinder] is asked to weigh the chances that the 4 evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the [factfinder] must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities.

Holland v. U.S., 348 U.S. 121, 140 (1954).

The evidence and its reasonable available inferences in this matter warrant the

trial court's factfinding that Ainsworth drove on a public road. Specifically, Ainsworth's

sole control and possession over his vehicle at the time of the accident and subsequently

at the convenience store parking lot, the close proximity in time between the accident and

when he was apprehended, and the credited testimony at trial that Ainsworth would have

to drive on a public road to reach the convenience store, are sufficient to support the

inference that Ainsworth drove on a public road for purposes of sections 302.020.1 and

302.010(7). See Boyd, 659 S.W.3d at 925.

Conclusion

Ainsworth's sole point is denied. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS

MATTHEW P. HAMNER, J. – CONCURS