363 S.W.3d 145
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Miner had a longstanding relationship with the victim, E.S., which was sometimes rocky; he moved out in June 2009.
- Between September 5 and September 12, 2009, Miner repeatedly called the victim, making threats to her, her dogs, and her family.
- Police records show Miner harassed the victim via phone; an incident involved a friend answering the victim’s cell phone and Miner's threats to the friend.
- On September 17, 2009, Miner broke into the victim’s house, held her for about three hours, raped her, and attempted sodomy before she escaped.
- Miner was charged with first-degree burglary, kidnapping, forcible rape, attempted forcible sodomy, second-degree burglary, and aggravated stalking; he was convicted of kidnapping, second-degree burglary, and aggravated stalking, with concurrent sentences.
- On appeal, Miner challenges only alleged instructional errors; he preserved none of the claims, and the court reviews for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggravated stalking instruction violated unanimity | Miner: multiple threats; verdict director failed to specify a threat | State: pattern of conduct over time suffices for unanimity | No unanimity violation; period-based conduct supports verdict |
| Whether kidnapping instruction complied with M.A.I. pattern | Miner: omitted 'and' between elements prejudicial | State: context shows required conjunctive understanding | Not plain error; instruction reasonable despite omission |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ebeirus, 184 S.W.3d 582 (Mo.App. S.D. 2006) (plain-error standard for substantial rights in Missouri appeals)
- State v. Celis-Garcia, 844 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011) (unanimity concerns when multiple discrete incidents form the basis for a single count)
- Twin Chimneys Homeowners Assoc. v. J.E. Jones Constr. Co., 168 S.W.3d 488 (Mo.App. E.D. 2005) (instructional-error review; test follows substantive law)
- Buckallew v. McGoldrick, 908 S.W.2d 704 (Mo.App. W.D. 1995) (typographical errors not necessarily prejudicial if intended meaning clear)
- State v. Cooper, 336 S.W.3d 212 (Mo.App. E.D. 2011) (plain-error review requires actual prejudice; misdirection must affect verdict)