609 S.W.3d 839
Mo. Ct. App.2020Background
- Host Carlton James Dickerson held a housewarming party; Victim drank heavily (two bottles of wine, a shot, and a mixed drink), vomited twice, and passed out in the hosts’ bedroom.
- Victim later felt sexual contact, testified she feigned sleep because she was intoxicated and afraid, and described digital penetration, removal of clothing, oral sex, and an attempted vaginal penetration that was unsuccessful.
- Girlfriend discovered Victim partially unclothed; Victim reported the incident to police; an internal swab later tested positive for Dickerson’s semen.
- Dickerson was charged with attempted first-degree rape (Count I) and two counts of first-degree sodomy (Counts II and III), each alleging Dickerson knew Victim was incapable of consent because of intoxication.
- A jury convicted on all counts; Dickerson moved for acquittal arguing insufficiency of evidence (Victim was awake and feigning sleep, therefore capable of consent; and attempt lacked purpose/substantial step). The trial court denied relief and sentenced him; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dickerson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Victim was incapable of consent (Count II — first-degree sodomy by hand) | Victim’s heavy intoxication (vomiting, passed out, slurred speech, still impaired when police arrived) supported a reasonable juror finding she was unable to make a reasonable judgment and thus incapable of consent even if briefly awake and feigning sleep. | Victim testified she was awake and pretending to sleep and therefore was capable of consenting or denying consent; that contradicts incapacity. | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; jury could credit intoxication evidence and reject parts of Victim’s testimony. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Victim was incapable of consent (Count III — first-degree sodomy by oral contact) | Same as Count II: the totality of intoxication evidence permitted a finding Victim was incapable of consent. | Same as Count II. | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for first-degree sodomy. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted first-degree rape (Count I) — intent and substantial step | Evidence Dickerson removed clothing, performed oral sex, attempted vaginal penetration, delayed/blocked doorway, and semen in internal swab strongly corroborated purpose to have intercourse and a substantial step toward it. | Dickerson claimed he believed Victim consented (flirting, moaning, helping pull down pants) and Victim was awake; thus no requisite purpose or substantial step toward intercourse with an incapacitated person. | Affirmed — jurors could disbelieve Dickerson’s account; intent and substantial step proven beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stewart, 560 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. banc 2018) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. banc 2008) (jury may accept or reject witness testimony; credibility and weight are for jury)
- State v. Knox, 553 S.W.3d 386 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (intoxication to the point of vomiting and impairment can support incapacity to consent)
- State v. Julius, 453 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (jury may find lack of consent due to limited consciousness after heavy drinking)
- State v. Speed, 551 S.W.3d 94 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (evidence of drug/alcohol use is relevant to victim’s state of mind and capacity)
- State v. Bjorgo, 571 S.W.3d 651 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (circumstantial evidence can support inference of intent to commit sexual assault)
- State v. Bonich, 289 S.W.3d 767 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (definition and proof of a substantial step in attempt offenses)