State v. Neal
328 S.W.3d 374
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Neal was convicted by jury of forcible rape and first-degree robbery; acquitted of forcible sodomy.
- K.L. was kidnapped, driven to Neal's apartment, raped after being coerced by Neal's threat and presence of weapons.
- Neal demanded money, forced K.L. to cash a check, and the events unfolded with Neal displaying weapons and making threats.
- DNA from K.L.'s rape kit matched Neal, tying him to the rape.
- Neal appealed, challenging both sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instruction for robbery; the court issued a mixed ruling.
- Conviction for first-degree robbery was reversed and remanded for conviction on second-degree robbery with resentencing; forcible rape conviction affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of forcible rape proof | Neal argues no forcible compulsion shown. | State contends explicit/implicit threats satisfied forcible compulsion. | No error; sufficient evidence of forcible compulsion. |
| Sufficiency of first-degree robbery proof | Neal argues insufficient evidence of forcible stealing with threat. | State argues whole course showed threat or use of weapon. | No error on sufficiency; however, instructional error found. |
| Improper jury instruction for robbery first degree | Omission of required element invalidates verdict. | Some cases support disregard if other instructions cover elements. | Partially granted; omission of element constitutes plain error. |
| Remedy for instructional error | Remedy should avoid windfall to State or defendant. | New trial or retargeting allowed by remedy cases. | Conviction for first-degree robbery reversed; remand for second-degree robbery conviction and resentencing; forcible rape affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Oliver, 293 S.W.3d 437 (Mo. banc 2009) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (due process requires proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Thiele, 935 S.W.2d 726 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (implied threat may satisfy forcible compulsion when combined with fear of violence)
- State v. Yancy, 779 S.W.2d 712 (Mo.App. E.D.1989) (course of forcible stealing includes pre- and contemporaneous events)
- State v. Weems, 840 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. banc 1992) (weapon presence can imply threat in robbery)
- State v. Belton, 949 S.W.2d 189 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (context of events determines threat in robbery analysis)
- State v. Roe, 6 S.W.3d 408 (Mo.App. E.D.1992) (remedy considerations when improper instruction occurred)
- State v. Bradshaw, 26 S.W.3d 461 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (verdict-director must contain all elements)
- State v. Doolittle, 896 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. banc 1995) (elements must be included in verdict director)
- State v. Ward, 745 S.W.2d 666 (Mo. banc 1988) (elements requirement quoted)
- State v. Farris, 125 S.W.3d 382 (Mo. App. W.D.2004) (failure to define possession in verdict director is error)
- State v. Harney, 51 S.W.3d 519 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (omitted element may constitute plain error when not supported by evidence)
- State v. Jones, 865 S.W.2d 658 (Mo. banc 1993) (possession defined in verdict director)
- State v. Hendricks, 675 S.W.2d 142 (Mo.App. E.D.1984) (lesser-included offense submission when evidence supports)