512 S.W.3d 94
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2003, a 4-year-old victim and 14-year-old Anthony Watson lived in the same household; the State presented evidence of multiple sexually related incidents over time.
- Watson was indicted for first-degree statutory sodomy (Count I: placing a hand on victim’s genitals) and attempted statutory sodomy (Count II: pushing victim’s head toward his genitals).
- Victim described repeated incidents on a living-room couch (couldn’t identify the penetrative body part or whether it was a finger or penis) and a separate bunk-bed incident where she licked Watson’s penis.
- In a recorded interview Watson admitted inserting his finger into the victim’s vagina one time and admitted trying to get oral sex. The recorded interview was not included in the appellate record.
- The verdict director for Count I specifically required the jury to find Watson “knowingly placed his finger in [Victim’s] vagina.” The jury convicted on Count I, acquitted on Count II; trial court sentenced Watson to ten years.
- Watson appealed, arguing the Count I verdict director allowed non-unanimous verdicts because the State presented evidence of multiple acts; the court reviewed for plain error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Watson’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict director violated the right to a unanimous jury verdict in a multiple-acts case | Verdict director was insufficiently specific given evidence of multiple incidents; jurors could have convicted based on different acts, violating unanimity | State elected a specific act (digital penetration of the vagina) in the verdict director, so unanimity preserved | Affirmed: no plain error — State elected a single act and only Watson’s admission supported that specific act |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011) (multiple-acts framework and unanimity requirement; State must elect or the verdict director must require unanimity)
- State v. Edwards, 365 S.W.3d 240 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (discusses election and need for specificity when multiple acts could support the charge)
- State v. Dorsey, 318 S.W.3d 648 (Mo. banc 2010) (plain error/instructional error affects verdict standard)
- Bruce v. State, 998 S.W.2d 91 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (appellate record must contain proceedings necessary for decision; omissions not presumed favorable)
- City of Lee’s Summit v. Collins, 615 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. App. W.D. 1981) (omitted exhibits may be taken as supporting the trial court’s judgment)