State v. Payne
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1418
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Payne was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree statutory sodomy in Missouri for three alleged acts against Victim, aged 11 at the time.
- The verdict director instructed guilt based on three acts: spring 2004 act, and two summer 2004 acts, all described as deviate sexual intercourse with Victim’s anus.
- Payne’s defense was a general denial, not an incident-specific defense challenging individual acts.
- The jury found Payne guilty and the court sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment following a trial.
- Victim disclosed the sodomy allegations in 2010; Payne’s trial occurred years earlier, after Victim’s statements and testimony.
- On appeal, Payne challenged the form of the verdict director as failing to distinguish among the three acts, violating jury unanimity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the verdict director violate unanimity in a multiple-acts case? | Payne: director insufficiently distinguished acts. | Payne: multiple acts require distinct guidance for unanimity. | No manifest injustice; some distinguishable act identified. |
| Was plain error review appropriate given no trial objections? | State: plain error review available if manifest injustice would result. | Payne: no objection, so plain error inquiry unnecessary. | Plain error review applicable; no manifest injustice found. |
| Did Payne’s general denial defense create manifest injustice from an insufficiently specific verdict? | Celis-Garcia requires incident-specific defense to show injustice. | Payne's general denial undermines certainty about acts; error harmful. | No manifest injustice; general defense does not create basis for injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011) (multiple-acts case; jury unanimity requires act-specific guidance)
- State v. LeSieur, 361 S.W.3d 458 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (distinguishing characteristics needed for unanimity in multi-act cases)
- State v. Brightman, 388 S.W.3d 192 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (plain-error review framework in criminal appeals)
- State v. Fincher, 359 S.W.3d 549 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (plain-error review framework cited for manifest injustice analysis)