State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Kavin Rachel, 507 S.W.3d 81

Background

Victim (5 at time) lived with her mother and appellant (mother’s boyfriend) from Jan–Jun 2013; mother and appellant shared a bedroom; Victim had bedroom next door.
On June 18, 2013 Victim disclosed Appellant had touched and licked her "privacy"; medical and CAC forensic interviews documented Victim pointing to genital area and describing hand and mouth contact.
State charged Appellant with one count of first‑degree statutory rape and three counts of first‑degree statutory sodomy (two counts alleging finger‑to‑genital contact in mother’s bedroom and Victim’s bedroom; one count alleging mouth‑to‑genital contact in mother’s bedroom).
Jury acquitted Appellant of statutory rape (Count I) and convicted on all three sodomy counts (Counts II–IV); Appellant was sentenced to concurrent 15‑year terms and appealed.
On appeal Appellant challenged (1) alleged witness misconduct/coaching by Victim’s mother, (2) sufficiency of evidence for the finger‑contact counts, and (3) instructional/unanimity errors for multiple acts. An evidentiary post‑verdict hearing was held; trial court and reviewing court found no impermissible coaching.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mistrial or further hearing required based on alleged coaching (mother told Victim to "say exactly what I told you")	State: testimony of deputy warranted hearing but trial judge properly held post‑verdict evidentiary hearing and credibility determinations resolved issue	Rachel: deputy’s statement showed Victim’s testimony was coached/perjured and required mistrial or full investigative hearing	Court affirmed denial of mistrial; post‑verdict evidentiary hearing found no coaching and trial court’s credibility findings were entitled to deference
Sufficiency of evidence for Counts II & IV (finger‑to‑genital contact)	State: CAC interview statements that hand was "on her skin," "in there," and "all the way between there" support reasonable inference of finger penetration	Rachel: CAC demonstrations (wiggling/spread fingers) and references to "on her privacy" did not prove finger insertion beyond reasonable doubt	Court held evidence sufficient; reasonable inference supported conviction on hand‑to‑genital counts
Whether verdict directors failed to require jury unanimity in a multiple‑acts context	State: counts and verdict directors separately identified acts and locations; Instruction 9 required separate verdicts and unanimity	Rachel: multiple discrete acts alleged could confuse jurors and permit non‑unanimous agreement as to which act supported conviction	Court held no unanimity violation: counts and instructions distinguished acts/locations and jury was instructed to be unanimous for each count
Whether Instructions 6 & 8 improperly hypothesized finger insertion not supported by evidence	State: instructions matched reasonable inferences from Victim’s statements	Rachel: instructions went beyond evidence by asserting insertion rather than mere touching	Court held no plain error: evidence supported submission of finger‑insertion hypothesis in verdict directors

Key Cases Cited

State v. Fassero, 256 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. banc) (standard for mistrial review)
State v. Sistrunk, 414 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. App. E.D.) (standard for judgment of acquittal/sufficient evidence review)
State v. Greenlee, 327 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. App. E.D.) (inference standard for proving sexual contact)
State v. Celis‑Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc) (unanimity instruction issues in multiple‑acts sexual offense cases)
Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc) (trial court credibility determinations)
State v. Rousan, 961 S.W.2d 831 (Mo. banc) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)