State of Missouri vs. Warren Eric Carter
On December 26, 2019, the victim (“Victim“)2 was outside of a liquor store when Carter approached her in a vehicle and asked if she needed a ride. Victim responded that she did and voluntarily got into the vehicle, believing it to be a “bootleg,” or unlicensed, taxicab. Victim had seen Carter before at the liquor store, but did not know him. Throughout the day, Victim had been drinking brandy and smoking “primo,” a mixture of crack cocaine and marijuana. Victim testified that she was intoxicated “over the limit,” which is partially why she got into the “taxi” with a stranger. After the two had driven for a while with Victim in the passenger seat, Carter pulled over. Carter then told Victim to take her clothes off and perform oral sex on him. Victim testified this made her feel threatened and scared for her life. She explained she was concerned Carter would kill her and that she tried to do what he told her to do until she had an opportunity to save herself. Carter then put Victim in the back seat of the vehicle. Carter pulled his pants halfway down and had sexual intercourse with Victim in the back seat. Before Carter engaged in sexual intercourse, Victim asked Carter to “let [her] live.” Shortly thereafter, Carter attempted to have anal sex with Victim until Victim yelled and bit Carter. Someone heard Victim yell and Carter subsequently drove away in his vehicle, without Victim.
Carter was subsequently charged with sodomy in the first degree and rape in the first degree for his actions against Victim.3 His case proceeded to a jury trial in September 2024. At trial, Carter testified he believed Victim to be a prostitute and could tell she had been drinking when he picked her up. He explained that the two settled on a price of $20 for oral sex and sexual intercourse. However, Carter stated he only paid Victim $10. Carter also testified his encounter with Victim was consensual.
Standard of Review
“We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable juror to find each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Thomas, 715 S.W.3d 557, 560 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (citing State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500, 508-09 (Mo. banc 2011)). To determine whether the State presented sufficient evidence at trial “to support a conviction and to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal, this Court does not weigh the evidence but, rather, accept[s] as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and ignore[s] all contrary evidence and inferences.” State v. Campbell, 600 S.W.3d 780, 786 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Ajak, 543 S.W.3d 43, 46 (Mo. banc 2018)). “As the trier of fact, the jury is the sole arbiter of witness credibility, and it is free to believe or disbelieve all, part, or none of any witness‘s testimony.” State v. Weston, 688 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (quoting State v. Ferguson, 568 S.W.3d 533, 540 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019)).
In his sole point on appeal, Carter argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal and convicting him of rape in the second degree because the State presented insufficient evidence to prove Carter knew or was aware he did not have the consent of Victim.
Under
Here, the State presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find Carter knew he lacked Victim‘s consent. Victim agreed to get into Carter‘s vehicle
Victim‘s conduct after the encounter also indicates she did not consent to sexual intercourse. She promptly fled to a local church and disclosed the incident, spoke with law enforcement, and submitted to an invasive rape examination. See State v. Swearinger, 699 S.W.3d 232, 240 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (finding that the
Carter does not acknowledge, let alone analyze, any of the above evidence in the argument section of his brief to this Court. Instead, Carter contends that “[t]he only evidence presented at trial about Mr. Carter‘s knowledge of whether he did not have the consent of [Victim] was her intoxication.” In making a sufficiency claim, however, an appellant is required to:
(1) identify the element of the crime he claims was not proven, (2) set forth the evidence in the record tending to prove that element and (3) show why such evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom are so non-probative that no reasonable fact-finder could have found that element was sufficiently proven.
State v. Johnson, 603 S.W.3d 371, 376 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (citing State v. Finch, 398 S.W.3d 928, 929 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013)). In failing to address the evidence discussed above, Carter fails to identify all of the evidence tending to prove his knowledge of Victim‘s lack of consent, and wholly lacks any explanation as to why such evidence is not sufficient. Further, Carter never explains why Victim‘s intoxication is relevant. His argument in this regard is limited to two sentences
Here, for the reasons described above, the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury‘s finding that Carter knew he lacked Victim‘s consent to engage in sexual intercourse. “As the trier of fact, the jury is the sole arbiter of witness credibility, and it is free to believe or disbelieve all, part, or none of any witness‘s testimony.” Weston, 688 S.W.3d at 9 (quoting Ferguson, 568 S.W.3d at 540). The jury was free to believe Victim that she did not consent to sexual intercourse and that she engaged in conduct which effectively communicated to Carter that he lacked her consent. Likewise, the jury was free to disbelieve Carter that Victim expressly consented to sexual intercourse. It is evident from the verdict that the jury believed Victim‘s testimony and disbelieved Carter‘s testimony. We
The trial court did not err in overruling Carter‘s motion for judgment of acquittal and convicting him of rape in the second degree. Point I is denied.
Conclusion
The trial court‘s judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
W. Douglas Thomson, Judge
All concur.