State v. Jackson
410 S.W.3d 204
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Four women in Waldo/Armour Hills were assaulted in late 1983–1984, blindfolded, robbed, sodomized, and raped; DNA/semen/hair/fingerprint evidence collected; cases remained unsolved for years.
- In 2010 DNA testing linked Bernard Jackson to the crimes; a grand jury indicted him on multiple counts of rape, sodomy, and robbery.
- Jackson was convicted on all counts in 2011; court sentenced him to eighteen consecutive life terms after prior/persistent offender findings.
- Jackson challenged: (1) sufficiency of evidence for displaying a deadly weapon, (2) double jeopardy on separate counts as continuing course of conduct, (3) Batson challenges to peremptory strikes, (4) admissibility of victim-impact testimony during guilt phase.
- Court affirms all convictions and sentences, rejecting each of Jackson’s challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient proof of displaying a deadly weapon? | Jackson contends no weapon was displayed. | State showed evidence of a gun-like object and threats. | Yes; evidence supported display/threats. |
| Did multiple offenses violate double jeopardy as a continuing course of conduct? | Several counts were part of one continuing offense. | Each penetration/act was a separate offense. | No; each penetration/sodomy acted as separate offenses. |
| Were Batson challenges properly denied? | State used discriminatory peremptory strikes. | Strikes were race-neutral and not pretextual. | Yes; circuit court's Batson rulings not clearly erroneous. |
| Did victim impact testimony during guilt phase prejudice the defendant? | Testimony should inform jurors about impact on victims. | Evidence was prejudicial and improper for guilt phase. | No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ford, 367 S.W.3d 163 (Mo.App. W.D.2012) (standard for sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- State v. Miller, 372 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. banc 2012) (deference to jury’s findings on guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Belton, 949 S.W.2d 189 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (victim need not see a weapon to sustain display)
- Lewis v. State, 24 S.W.3d 140 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (threat of use of a gun can support weapon display even if unseen)
- Purkett v. Elem., 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (race-neutral explanations suffice at Batson step two)
- State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo.banc 2010) (three-step Batson framework; pretext proving burden)
- State v. Ogle, 668 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App. S.D.1984) (victim-condition evidence admissible to prove force)
- State v. Feemster, 628 S.W.2d 367 (Mo.App. E.D.1982) (relevance of crime circumstances and corpus delicti)