540 S.W.3d 418
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Miguel McIntosh (bench trial) was charged with first‑degree statutory sodomy and first‑degree child molestation based on allegations that he licked his nine‑year‑old cousin's anus and vagina.
- TJ reported the incident to family; a Child Protection Center forensic interview and a school investigator interview were recorded and admitted.
- Police interrogation recording and a written apology from McIntosh, in which he acknowledged the acts, were admitted.
- The judge accidentally announced a verdict of guilt before closing arguments, then (on defense objection) retracted that announcement, recessed overnight, allowed closing arguments the next day, and then again found McIntosh guilty on both counts.
- Defendant received concurrent sentences (20 years for sodomy, 15 years for molestation) and appealed, arguing plain error from the premature verdict and that the judge should have recused or declared a mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McIntosh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judge's premature announcement of guilt before closing argument required automatic reversal (structural error) or plain‑error review | The judge cured any error by retracting the premature statement, allowing closing arguments, and then entering the verdict after reconsideration | The premature announcement deprived McIntosh of his Sixth Amendment right to closing argument and created structural error requiring automatic reversal | The court declined structural‑error treatment; it found no facial showing of manifest injustice and declined full plain‑error review, holding the error was cured and not reversible |
| Whether the court's conduct required recusal or sua sponte mistrial due to apparent bias after the premature verdict | The State argued the judge acted transparently, retracted the comment, allowed argument, remained open‑minded, and therefore recusal/mistrial were unnecessary | McIntosh argued the premature finding showed the judge was biased and should have recused or declared a mistrial | The court held recusal/mistrial were not required: no extrajudicial source of bias and nothing showing the judge refused to consider arguments; presumption of judicial impartiality stands |
| Whether denial of closing arguments (if any) was plain error when not preserved by timely request for relief | State: no denial; judge corrected mistake and allowed arguments, so no plain error | McIntosh: failure to preserve preserved only plain‑error review and the error was plain because it denied closing argument | The court found no plain error—judge permitted closing argument to an attentive, open‑minded trier and thus no manifest injustice |
| Proper standard for reviewing inadvertent premature verdicts (structural vs. prejudice inquiry) | State: apply prejudice/plain‑error analysis, considering surrounding circumstances | McIntosh: urges a strict rule akin to Spence (automatic reversal) | Court adopted a contextual/prejudice approach (citing Price/Westenfelder), rejecting automatic reversal and applying a prejudice/plain‑error framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1975) (denial of closing argument violates Sixth Amendment)
- Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (certain complete deprivation errors are structural)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (framework distinguishing structural error from trial error)
- Glebe v. Frost, 135 S. Ct. 429 (U.S. 2014) (questioning scope of structural error for restriction of summation)
- Crooks v. State, 884 S.W.2d 90 (Mo. App. 1994) (denial of closing argument is plain error absent waiver)
- Price v. United States, 795 F.2d 61 (10th Cir. 1986) (judge’s inadvertent comments do not necessarily deny open‑minded consideration; closing argument may still be effective)
- Spence v. State, 296 Md. 416 (Md. 1983) (announcing premature guilt before summation held incurable by later retraction)
- Anderson v. State, 402 S.W.3d 86 (Mo. banc 2013) (recusal standard; bias must be extrajudicial to disqualify)
- United States v. Ramirez‑Castillo, 748 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2014) (discussion of structural error examples)