State of Missouri v. Jeffrey Holmes
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 326
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jeffrey Holmes, a Kansas City police officer, was indicted on multiple counts including acceding to corruption for allegedly accepting sex from a prostitute (C.C.) in exchange for not arresting her; jury convicted on one count of acceding to corruption.
- Prosecutor alleged Holmes solicited and knowingly accepted sexual and deviate sexual intercourse from C.C. in return for his official discretion not to arrest her.
- Facts at trial: Holmes contacted C.C. via Backpage and arranged a hotel meeting; arrived in clothing resembling police gear with holstered gun and handcuffs; forced entry, threatened arrest, took down her ID, said he had no money, and then engaged in oral sex and intercourse while not arresting her.
- C.C. testified she believed Holmes wanted sex in exchange for not arresting her; she later identified Holmes and reported the incident; Holmes did not testify.
- Jury found Holmes guilty on the acceding-to-corruption count; trial judge sentenced him to 15 days jail and a $2,500 fine. Holmes appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to prove he solicited or knowingly accepted sex in exchange for not arresting C.C., and (2) a prejudicial variance between the indictment ("knowingly accepted") and the verdict director ("solicited").
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Holmes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Holmes solicited sex | Evidence (calls, appointment, threats, DOMINION of police persona, sexual acts, no arrest) shows solicitation and knowing acceptance in exchange for not arresting — supports conviction | Evidence insufficient to prove "knowingly accepted" sexual acts in exchange for official discretion; testimony inadequate | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to convict under either "solicited" or "knowingly accepted" theories |
| Variance between indictment ("knowingly accepted") and verdict director ("solicited") | No prejudice; both terms are statutory alternatives and evidence supported both; defendant adequately defended | Variance deprived Holmes of fair notice and prejudiced defense; plain error requiring reversal | Affirmed — no plain error; no prejudice shown; defendant’s counsel used same language in other instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jeffrey, 400 S.W.3d 303 (Mo. banc 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Bradshaw, 411 S.W.3d 399 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (sufficiency and instruction/variance principles)
- State v. Kimberley, 103 S.W.3d 850 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (credibility and weight of witness testimony are for jury)
- State v. White, 466 S.W.3d 682 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (plain error must be outcome-determinative)
- State v. Lee, 841 S.W.2d 648 (Mo. banc 1992) (variance prejudicial only if it affects defendant’s ability to defend)
- State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. banc 2012) (defendant cannot complain of instruction error he requested)
- State v. Burrell, 160 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2005) (knowledge and intent may be proven by reasonable inference)
- State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. banc 1993) (defendant bears burden to show alleged error produced manifest injustice)