State v. Scott
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1140
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant Kevin Scott was convicted of two counts of statutory rape and three counts of forcible sodomy, receiving five consecutive life terms.
- The conduct occurred in 1997 at a trailer where four teenage girls were assaulted; one girl sought help and Carberry aided in locating Scott.
- Appellate history: convictions were affirmed in 2002; post-conviction relief vacated in February 2010; retrial scheduled.
- In April 2010, Scott moved to dismiss, arguing that delay in processing his post-conviction relief violated his rights and could prejudice his retrial.
- Trial began August 31, 2010; hammer instruction MAI-CR 3d 312.10 was given; jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts.
- Sentencing occurred immediately after verdicts; the court imposed life terms consecutive on all five counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial claim timing and framework | State argued Barker framework governs, delay largely attributable to post-conviction proceedings. | Scott contends pretrial delay violated due process and his speedy-trial rights. | Speedy-trial claim rejected; no abuse of discretion. |
| Hammer instruction propriety | State contends hammer instruction was proper given potential deadlock and notes on use. | Scott asserts coercion and improper use of hammer instruction. | Hammer instruction properly given; no coercion; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Consecutive-sentencing legality and plain error | State argued consecutive sentencing required by statute or jury recommendation. | Scott claimed court erred by imposing consecutive sentences based on misreading the statute. | No plain error; consecutive sentences affirmed under proper consideration of the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Loewe, 756 S.W.2d 177 (Mo. App. 1988) (speedy-trial analysis requires balancing factors)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor test for speedy-trial claims)
- State v. Buchli, 152 S.W.3d 289 (Mo. App. 2004) (Sixth Amendment framework for speedy-trial delays from collateral proceedings)
- State v. Howell, 581 S.W.2d 461 (Mo. App. 1979) (time consumed by appeals not counted against speedy-trial analysis)
- State v. Seaton, 815 S.W.2d 90 (Mo. App. 1991) (consecutive sentences when based on proper considerations, not merely misreading statute)
- State v. Burgess, 800 S.W.2d 743 (Mo. banc 1990) (analysis of plain-error in sentencing and reliance on prosecutor's interpretation)
- State v. Williams, 800 S.W.2d 739 (Mo. banc 1990) (preservation requirements for challenging sentences)
- Copple, 51 S.W.3d 11 (Mo. App. 2001) (hammer instruction standards and coercion considerations)